Oh dear, I forgot about the door slamming shut, but if that was the case the Children would of been startled. If you watch the first minute of this video Kate tells us she could see the twins from the doorway, look how far she opens the door, it's barely enough to fit your head around it. Kate clearly say's " How We'd Left it " Have a look for yourself. Like I said in my first post, it would have been impossible for Kate to see inside of the brown cot without having to step into the bedroom and walk towards it, she say's the room is dark, so how come she saw the twins?
Which makes me think the Children were left unattended till 10pm. May I remind you also that Gerry and Kate never once went looking for Maddie, they admitted this over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
It doesn't mean what you think it does. There could have been one hundred people checking the kids that night but when Kate does her check she is entitled to assess whether the door is in the position where she left it earlier.
Some parents tend to associate boys with blue and girls with pink. Whether the McCann's did the same is unknown but I think they did especially for Madeleine so likely also for Amelie.
I.e. the blue cot for Sean and hence the brown (nearly pink) one for Amelie.
It doesn't mean what you think it does. There could have been one hundred people checking the kids that night but when Kate does her check she is entitled to assess whether the door is in the position where she left it earlier.
Some parents tend to associate boys with blue and girls with pink. Whether the McCann's did the same is unknown but I think they did especially for Madeleine so likely also for Amelie.
I.e. the blue cot for Sean and hence the brown (nearly pink) one for Amelie.
Did Kate know how the door was left?She would know the preferred position that she would prefer to leave it in. That is my point. So no matter who touched it she wanted the door to be left in her preferred position and in the process of returning the door to that position it slammed.
Before leaving they checked on the children, she doesn't know who; however Gerry says it was him. She only knows the children were quiet. She doesn't know if they were in their same positions. She says she is sure that they were asleep, because Gerry told her all was quiet.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
When you open a door your view get bigger and bigger until you unfold the full picture. So if I opened the Childrens bedroom door, my first visual contact would have been Maddie, as I opened the door further I would have seen the blue cot and as I opened the door even further I get to see the blue cot. Unless Kate McCann has a Stretch Armstrong neck this wasn't possible. How did she see the Twins before she saw Maddie's empty bed, it was dark.To see you need light. You have not considered where the light is coming from.
The cots are much lower than Maddie's bed, thus making the blue cot further away from the door than Maddie lying at least knee height of Kate, the cots are just inches off the floor.
To see you need light. You have not considered where the light is coming from.
How could Kate McCann see the Twins, but she couldn't see Maddie?OK Madeleine should have been just around the corner when the door was being opened but there is no source of light shining along that wall to light her up.
Robin Banks. You are new to this Forum and perhaps have not yet realised that we have rules by which you must abide if you wish for your comments to stand.
I will be grateful if you would pay attention to this.
I may be new to the Forum but I am not new to the site, I joined in 2014 but was a guest for many years beforehand.
Please tell me how Kate McCann saw the Twins in their respected cots?
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
Faced with this situation,she verified that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance. The whole group then set about searching for Madeleine throughout the complex, looked in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc....as well as in the apartment with the help of employees, who, at the same time, contacted the authorities.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9504.msg461407#msg461407
What isn't clear to you about that?
How did she see the Twins before seeing Maddie's empty bed if the room was in darkness?
You will be familiar with the many posts on the forum regarding paraphrased non-verbatim statements taken at the time.
Obviously this is merely an example of one.
In my opinion ... Kate ascertained the twins were there by looking after she noticed Madeleine was missing. The sequence of events as follows
- Kate pulls the door towards her
- door slams
- Kate opens door ~ curtains billow
- Kate sees that Madeleine is missing from her bed
But Kate say's she see's the Twins in their respected cots, before she see's Maddie, how is that possible?
Kate does not pull the door towards herself, she pushes the door wider.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.I wouldn't be surprised if by that stage she had not turned on the lights and actually bodily entered the children's bedroom.
Faced with this situation,she verified that the twins were in their respective beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared. The cover was pulled back and the toys were on the pillow as usual. After searching the whole apartment thoroughly, the interviewee went back, scared and shocked, to the restaurant, to alert her husband and the others to the disappearance. The whole group then set about searching for Madeleine throughout the complex, looked in all the buildings, swimming pool, tennis courts etc....as well as in the apartment with the help of employees, who, at the same time, contacted the authorities.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9504.msg461407#msg461407
What isn't clear to you about that?
She didn't actually see Madeleine though, did she? Madeleine wasn't there to be seen.
You are undoubtedly mistaken regarding the sequence of events. Kate noticed the door was open further than it had been left ... she moved it to its usual position, in the process of which it slammed. She then opened it and looked into the room.
"I just noticed that the door … the bedroom door … where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and as I got to here it suddenly slammed ... " Kate McCann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
I wouldn't be surprised if by that stage she had not turned on the lights and actually bodily entered the children's bedroom.
So by her own admission she wasn't intending to eyeball her kids, not really check them at all.
There is no secret about it and there never was. They did listening checks. I don't have time to check at the moment, but didn't Gerry say he wouldn't have looked into the room on the night Madeleine went missing if the door hadn't been open further than they had left it?
I knew that and for some reason I had assumed everyone who posts on a regular basis about Madeleine's case did too, particularly as I have seen it quoted often in a derogatory manner.
There is no secret about it and there never was. They did listening checks. I don't have time to check at the moment, but didn't Gerry say he wouldn't have looked into the room on the night Madeleine went missing if the door hadn't been open further than they had left it?
On the 4/05/2007 he didn't say that.
Ref PJ files.
When you open a door your view get bigger and bigger until you unfold the full picture. So if I opened the Childrens bedroom door, my first visual contact would have been Maddie, as I opened the door further I would have seen the blue cot and as I opened the door even further I get to see the blue cot. Unless Kate McCann has a Stretch Armstrong neck this wasn't possible. How did she see the Twins before she saw Maddie's empty bed, it was dark.
The cots are much lower than Maddie's bed, thus making the blue cot further away from the door than Maddie lying at least knee height of Kate, the cots are just inches off the floor.
How did she see the Twins before she saw Maddie's empty bed, it was dark.I cant think how you can believe this? You are so obviously Wrong !
1) What do you mean by this [first] sentence ? ... but it is Wrong anywayBoth are reasonable points.
2) I cant think how you can believe this? You are so obviously Wrong !
I have looked at the Children's bedroom photo many times, but today I noticed something else. Kate has always maintained that everything was quiet in the apartment when she returned at 10pm, she listened at the Children's bedroom door and all seemed fine. But then she noticed the door was slightly more open than how they'd left it, which indicates to me that the Children wasn't checked at all that night. So Kate opens the door slightly and see's the Twins sleeping.1) You are assuming that despite several people moving around that room, searching and checking windows shutters etc., then removing the twins to take elsewhere with their bedclothes, that nothing got moved? That is a big assumption and may, or may not, be correct
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10256722.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Missing-Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
One of the cots is blue and has a mesh type fabric covering all sides, the other cot is brown and has the same type of mesh fabric, but it only covers the side panels on the cot, the head and foot panels are covered in brown fabric that you can't see through.
Kate pops her head round the door and see's two sleeping babies in their cots, she wouldn't of had a problem seeing the baby in the blue cot, but seeing the baby in the brown cot would have been impossible unless she was about eight feet tall.
So Kate McCann has seen the two babies in their cots without entering the room and in the dark.
Well I done my own experiment, I put a large box on my bed and the further I stepped away the less I saw what was inside and further more, if a Child was going to be abducted that night surely they would have taken the Child that was out of view and not the one that was in plain sight, thus giving them more time to make their getaway. I suspect Amelia was sleeping in the brown cot.
Just an observation
I have looked at the Children's bedroom photo many times, but today I noticed something else. Kate has always maintained that everything was quiet in the apartment when she returned at 10pm, she listened at the Children's bedroom door and all seemed fine. But then she noticed the door was slightly more open than how they'd left it, which indicates to me that the Children wasn't checked at all that night. So Kate opens the door slightly and see's the Twins sleeping.And that, Robin, is exactly what they did. They took the child who was out of view from the doorway = Madeleine.
One of the cots is blue and has a mesh type fabric covering all sides, the other cot is brown and has the same type of mesh fabric, but it only covers the side panels on the cot, the head and foot panels are covered in brown fabric that you can't see through.
Kate pops her head round the door and see's two sleeping babies in their cots, she wouldn't of had a problem seeing the baby in the blue cot, but seeing the baby in the brown cot would have been impossible unless she was about eight feet tall.
So Kate McCann has seen the two babies in their cots without entering the room and in the dark.
Well I done my own experiment, I put a large box on my bed and the further I stepped away the less I saw what was inside and further more, if a Child was going to be abducted that night surely they would have taken the Child that was out of view and not the one that was in plain sight, thus giving them more time to make their getaway. I suspect Amelia was sleeping in the brown cot.
Just an observation
1) What do you mean by this [first] sentence ? ... but it is Wrong anyway
2) I cant think how you can believe this? You are so obviously Wrong !
1) You are assuming that despite several people moving around that room, searching and checking windows shutters etc., then removing the twins to take elsewhere with their bedclothes, that nothing got moved? That is a big assumption and may, or may not, be correct
2) The Twins cots have very low sides. The bed is a cheapish bed and low as can be seen on various photos. The bed only comes up to the upper end of the second drawer of the chest, and the twins travel cots only come up to the lower edge of the upper drawer ... so maybe 4"-5" higher than the low bed?
3) The photograph is taken from a low level. You can see the door knob.
4) All these facts show that the travel cots had very low sides. Kate is tall and IMO would have no problem seeing the twins in these travel cots from the doorway. Especially so as the only one with a blanked end was quite close to her
IMO, Kate could see straight into these travel cots from the doorway. One big step into the room and she could have seen madeleine, had she been there.
Yep, Robin, the room was fairly dark inside but with the shutters up, a small amount of light would have been coming in via the window, and some light would have been beaming in onto the brown cot especially from the lamp that was left on in the sitting room. Madeleine, around the corner, would not have benefitted so much from the light from the sitting room
For Kate to have seen the brown cot, the door would have to be wide open, the brown cot would be the last object to be seen.
The best thing I suggest is stand behind a closed door and open it slightly, what do you see? Then open it a little more, what do you see? You will see more of the room. Open the door fully and you see the whole picture. For Kate to have seen the brown cot the door would have to be wide open.
Please don't tell me that I am wrong in what I say, I've proved it.
Gerry McCann didn't have a problem seeing Maddie sleeping in her bed that night, so why couldn't Kate?
For Kate to have seen the brown cot, the door would have to be wide open, the brown cot would be the last object to be seen.
The best thing I suggest is stand behind a closed door and open it slightly, what do you see? Then open it a little more, what do you see? You will see more of the room. Open the door fully and you see the whole picture. For Kate to have seen the brown cot the door would have to be wide open.
Please don't tell me that I am wrong in what I say, I've proved it.
Gerry McCann didn't have a problem seeing Maddie sleeping in her bed that night, so why couldn't Kate?
You are wrong because you forgot the Wall that hid Madeleine from sight.
Gerry went into the bedroom and that is why he could see Madeleine.
MKadeleine would be the LAST little one to be seen by anyone entering via the door NOT the FIRST.
Soz Robin, but you need to mug up on the room itself via plans and videos etc. so that you become aware of THAT wall !
Robin, please study the photos and plans more carefully.
There is a blank wall to the left as the door is opened. This virtually completely blanks off the view of Madeleines bed, just the bottom corner can be seen. Madeleine would have been completely out of sight until Kate stepped in and saw around that wall.
This wall is also the reason why Matt didn't see Madeleine when he checked. He didn't step into the room and she was out of sight, behind that wall, if she was there, of course.
Until someone stepped far enough into the room she was out of sight, so the last to be seen. Hidden in Plain Sight, as you say
I am aware of the wall thanks, but the hidden child would be the child in the brown cot. After the door slams she opens the door slightly and see's the twins in their respected cots, the door would have to be fully open to see the brown cot. How did Kate see the Twins, the room was dark. The blue cot was further from Kate than Maddie's bed, it wasn't until the curtains flew open that she could see Maddie's empty bed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Please provide a cite for the blank wall.
What makes you certain that the position of the cots in the photograph is exactly as they were before Madeleine's disappearance was discovered?
How did she see the Twins before seeing Maddie's empty bed if the room was in darkness?
I wouldn't be surprised if by that stage she had not turned on the lights and actually bodily entered the children's bedroom.
A little Girl has gone missing, why would anyone arrange the room differently? and for what reason?
Lets try and move the cots around, it's quite easy to do this as there is only one other way the cots will fit and that's parallel with Maddie's bed and the bed under the window, so all beds are lined up next to each other. This is a really silly idea as Maddie would have difficulty getting into her bed and Kate would have difficulty putting the Twins in their respected cots, plus the chest of drawers would have become unusable.
Unless the whole room was rearranged.
She has never admitted turning on the bedroom light.
1) You are assuming that despite several people moving around that room, searching and checking windows shutters etc., then removing the twins to take elsewhere with their bedclothes, that nothing got moved? That is a big assumption and may, or may not, be correct
2) The Twins cots have very low sides. The bed is a cheapish bed and low as can be seen on various photos. The bed only comes up to the upper end of the second drawer of the chest, and the twins travel cots only come up to the lower edge of the upper drawer ... so maybe 4"-5" higher than the low bed?
3) The photograph is taken from a low level. You can see the door knob.
4) All these facts show that the travel cots had very low sides. Kate is tall and IMO would have no problem seeing the twins in these travel cots from the doorway. Especially so as the only one with a blanked end was quite close to her
IMO, Kate could see straight into these travel cots from the doorway. One big step into the room and she could have seen madeleine, had she been there.
Yep, Robin, the room was fairly dark inside but with the shutters up, a small amount of light would have been coming in via the window, and some light would have been beaming in onto the brown cot especially from the lamp that was left on in the sitting room. Madeleine, around the corner, would not have benefitted so much from the light from the sitting room
In "Madeleine Was Here P1" Kate says she didn't want to put the light on because she didn't want to wake the children so I think it is a safe bet she didn't.
She goes on to describe the curtains blowing into the room and she could see clearly then that Madeleine was missing from her bed so I think there was light coming into the room from somewhere.
But that is odd because according to Gerry McCann, some 45 minutes earlier he was able to identify Maddie lying on her bed so the room was clearly not as dark as some would claim?
It was light enough for Jane Tanner to see the man with the child at the top of the road and give a reasonable description of what she saw helped by the street lights.
I don't know how much light was thrown by the lamp behind Gerry and if that contributed.
Kate could also see into the room but had to enter it after the door slammed to see Madeleine's bed clearly, but it was only when the curtains blew that she realised the shutters were up and the window open.
I think the light could have been coming from the street lamp outside, I think the room would have been very dark without a source of illumination of some type.
Please provide a cite for the blank wall.The floor plan shows it as a blank wall.
She has never admitted turning on the bedroom light. It was all very strange that the door chose to slam at that point and was not closed already when she entered the apartment. The very act of opening the patio door would have caused a through draft which should have closed the door.These effects are really only noticed when the gap in the doorway is narrowed.
In "Madeleine Was Here P1" Kate says she didn't want to put the light on because she didn't want to wake the children so I think it is a safe bet she didn't.I took that to mean at that stage "because she didn't want to wake the children", but when she says she verified that the twins were there and Madeleine missing I don't think the problem of waking the kids is relevant anymore.
She goes on to describe the curtains blowing into the room and she could see clearly then that Madeleine was missing from her bed so I think there was light coming into the room from somewhere.
But that is odd because according to Gerry McCann, some 45 minutes earlier he was able to identify Maddie lying on her bed so the room was clearly not as dark as some would claim?I don't believe this photo is of the McCann's kids room.
I think Robin makes a valid point, the reverse photo from the cots to the door shows that unless you enter the room you cannot see into the cots. Same applies to most of Maddie's bed.
(https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article890106.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/331C15FA-DB20-CC5A-AF56FC8031D7938B.jpg)
1) You are assuming that despite several people moving around that room, searching and checking windows shutters etc., then removing the twins to take elsewhere with their bedclothes, that nothing got moved? That is a big assumption and may, or may not, be correct
2) The Twins cots have very low sides. The bed is a cheapish bed and low as can be seen on various photos. The bed only comes up to the upper end of the second drawer of the chest, and the twins travel cots only come up to the lower edge of the upper drawer ... so maybe 4"-5" higher than the low bed?
3) The photograph is taken from a low level. You can see the door knob.
4) All these facts show that the travel cots had very low sides. Kate is tall and IMO would have no problem seeing the twins in these travel cots from the doorway. Especially so as the only one with a blanked end was quite close to her
IMO, Kate could see straight into these travel cots from the doorway. One big step into the room and she could have seen madeleine, had she been there.
Yep, Robin, the room was fairly dark inside but with the shutters up, a small amount of light would have been coming in via the window, and some light would have been beaming in onto the brown cot especially from the lamp that was left on in the sitting room. Madeleine, around the corner, would not have benefitted so much from the light from the sitting room
The door knob you see in the photo is from a built in cupboard and not the main bedroom door, which you can see in this picture more clearly.Thanks.
The curtains in the children's bedroom were full length, one was pinned behind the spare bed, but the nets were short. In my opinion it was the nets which moved and not the curtains.
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/nintchdbpict000320321302.jpg)
I don't believe this photo is of the McCann's kids room.
Why don't you think it's their bedroom? Better contact Paul Lewis and inform him.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/zzapartment5ad.jpg)
Interior of 5A bedroom where Madeleine slept
First picture inside the apartment, released 12/11/07
This was the first picture to show the interior of Madeleine's bedroom, from where she was allegedly abducted.
The picture was taken through the front window after the police had completed their forensic investigations. It was released to newspapers on 12 November 2007.
It shows Madeleine's bed, with sheets, but does not show the cots where the twins slept. Presumably the cots, being the property of Mark Warner, were returned and reissued to other guests.
Also worth noting is that there is no 'high shelf'; onto which, it was reported, Kate McCann had described seeing Cuddle Cat - the significance being that it was out of Madeleine's reach and could therefore only have been placed there by an intruder. However, it should be added that these reports came from 'souces' and there is no such quote directly attributable to Kate herself.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id21.htm
Inside Madeleine's bedroom 12 NOV 2007
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/inside-madeleines-bedroom-520235
In my opinion the blank wall to which Sadie refers is the one beside the bed occupied by Madeleine. As can be seen from the photograph where a small area at the foot of the bed is visible ~ a person sleeping in a bed in that position could not be seen from outside the room.
The room had to be entered or at least the head had to be inserted well into the room past the door jamb to enable a sight of the individual in the bed.(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/sitebuilderpictures/notwbedroomfromhallway.jpg)
That is the wall to the room, level with the door? Nothing like Sadie was describing.
In "Madeleine Was Here P1" Kate says she didn't want to put the light on because she didn't want to wake the children so I think it is a safe bet she didn't.
She goes on to describe the curtains blowing into the room and she could see clearly then that Madeleine was missing from her bed so I think there was light coming into the room from somewhere.
That is the wall to the room, level with the door? Nothing like Sadie was describing.
Look at those nice shiny floors in the apartment.
Today I would think the floors in the apartment would be tested for footprints, with three children running around barefoot there would be plenty, even one foot print on another can be proved quite easily these days. This could have proved that Maddie was in the apartment at all times as the Twins, as long as they all added up that is.
Of course the original forensic team tried to take samples from the floor. They successfully retrieved some hairs but unfortunately they were hampered in their efforts by the presence of dragon's blood used to lift fingerprints ~ the vast number of footprints as a result of the numbers who had access to the apartment ~ cigarette ash from police smokers ~ canine hair from the police dogs.Robin should declare as to what basic theory she is operating to.
Please note there is no suggestion that Madeleine was anywhere other than the record states throughout her short stay in Luz ... it is a meeting point Amaral and I share and there can't be many of those..
In my opinion it was precisely what Sadie described. It is a blank wall which blocks a view of the occupant of the bed from the doorway.
I consider it the cite you requested.
In "Madeleine Was Here P1" Kate says she didn't want to put the light on because she didn't want to wake the children so I think it is a safe bet she didn't.
She goes on to describe the curtains blowing into the room and she could see clearly then that Madeleine was missing from her bed so I think there was light coming into the room from somewhere.
As soon as she opened the slamming door her eyes will see Madeleine's bed first before the cots. Her demonstration on youtube proves it. Not checking before closing the door is a red flag.
A little Girl has gone missing, why would anyone arrange the room differently? and for what reason?What Brietta says is absolutely valid. The cots may have been arranged completely askew, in order that each child could see the others directly.
Lets try and move the cots around, it's quite easy to do this as there is only one other way the cots will fit and that's parallel with Maddie's bed and the bed under the window, so all beds are lined up next to each other. This is a really silly idea as Maddie would have difficulty getting into her bed and Kate would have difficulty putting the Twins in their respected cots, plus the chest of drawers would have become unusable.
Unless the whole room was rearranged.
The first thing that Kate would see as she opened the door was the small corner of the foot of Madeleines bed; she would not see Madeleine until she stepped into the room and could see round the wall.
Before seeing Madeleine, she would see the Twins cots. You, Robin insisted that Kate would see Madeleine (herself) before she swaw the Twins. That is not true IMO. Please would you amend your posts.
Thank you in anticipation
ETA: I find that I am responding to you, Pathfinder. What you say is not incorrect, but it is only half the story and gives a different perspective because of that.
The response above is aimed at Robin Banks who has it all wrong IMO
If the shutter was up the room wouldn't have been in complete darkness.
She has never admitted turning on the bedroom light. It was all very strange that the door chose to slam at that point and was not closed already when she entered the apartment. The very act of opening the patio door would have caused a through draft which should have closed the door.You are wrong Angelo, soz.
So why wasn't Kate McCann put on alert instantly that something was wrong if the shutter was up and the room was much lighter than it should have been? According to her she only became aware of something being wrong when the door slammed. Clearly imo she never opened the bedroom door or checked that the children were actually there.Eyes take time to adjust when moving thru different levels, especially from light to dark
Robin should declare as to what basic theory she is operating to.
Why should any one declare their theory?
What is the point in having a Theory if you don't declare it?
Why should any one declare their theory?Well personally if your theory or understanding of your favoured theory is declared it gives the rest an idea of how different your view is from others.
Cos it may be fairly fluid?I like that reply, for to be fluid is showing you are open for improvement IMO.
Cos it may be fairly fluid?
What is the point in having a Theory if you don't declare it?
What is the point in having a Theory if you don't declare it?
You are wrong Angelo, soz.madeleine p71 "I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.
For a draft, opening the patio door (or a window/door on the leeward side of the building) especially a little was necessary, of course, BUT the draft increased as the bedroom door was closing [Venturi Effect]
Also, the bedroom door face towards the draft increased in size as the door was closing, so a larger area for the wind (force) coming thru the window to hit on
So that at the end of the day you can say that you were right all along without being challenged ?{)(**
madeleine p71 "I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.
A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. Retracing my steps, I confirmed that I hadn't."
Kate describes a situation in which the door should not have slammed shut.
madeleine p71 "I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.
A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. Retracing my steps, I confirmed that I hadn't."
Kate describes a situation in which the door should not have slammed shut.
No... It slammed shut because of the open window
Yesssssssssssssssssss. see someone else spotted that. My police friend said just that!I felt Gerry turned on the lights.
Also the light... it was dark she couldn't see Maddie, but she could see the twins in their cots? Gerry saw Maddie when he had his doting dad moment so was someone switching on and off lights or what?
Why did the door not slam shut when it was first opened then? Gerry saw Maddie on top of her bed when he claimed he looked in on her. IMO the one and only physical check he did that week. What a coincidence. He also said later that he 'felt' the abductor was in the apartment- so no blowing. whooshing for him then. and what about the Matt Check- nope all was quiet.. did he give a measurement of the door at all when he held his ear to it? I can't recall.The next windy day see if you can get a door to slam shut.
The next windy day see if you can get a door to slam shut.
If I have my front door open and someone walks through my back door, my front door slams shut.OK in that situation you can get the front door to slam even when it is quite open for there is a full gust of wind through the house. That happens. What happens if there is little to no breeze?
There does need to be another wind source.
OK in that situation you can get the front door to slam even when it is quite open for there is a full gust of wind through the house. That happens. What happens if there is little to no breeze?
It's called Air Pressure.It is more than air pressure for there is always air pressure. What I was trying to get at was on a quiet day the front door would not slam but if you closed it and left it agar it might still close in a very gentle breeze.
It is more than air pressure for there is always air pressure. What I was trying to get at was on a quiet day the front door would not slam but if you closed it and left it agar it might still close in a very gentle breeze.
No... It slammed shut because of the open window
But it would only be a Theory.
The first thing that Kate would see as she opened the door was the small corner of the foot of Madeleines bed; she would not see Madeleine until she stepped into the room and could see round the wall.
Before seeing Madeleine, she would see the Twins cots. You, Robin insisted that Kate would see Madeleine (herself) before she swaw the Twins. That is not true IMO. Please would you amend your posts.
Thank you in anticipation
ETA: I find that I am responding to you, Pathfinder. What you say is not incorrect, but it is only half the story and gives a different perspective because of that.
The response above is aimed at Robin Banks who has it all wrong IMO
How could she see the Baby in the brown cot, it's behind the bedroom door.
No it isn't.
How could she see the Baby in the brown cot, it's behind the bedroom door.
Well where would you say it was situated?
We don't know how far open the bedroom door was. Your comments are speculation at best.
Kate demonstrates this in this video, you will only have to watch the first minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Yes?
whats wrong with theorys?? 8)-)))
whats wrong with theorys?? 8)-)))
Can you tell me what this is supposed to mean? Beyond how I see.
Kate demonstrates this in this video, you will only have to watch the first minute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Clearly demonstrates that she wasn't intending to do a visual check but simply intended to listen at the patio door for anything untoward.
That is the wall to the room, level with the door? Nothing like Sadie was describing.
Robin, please study the photos and plans more carefully.
There is a blank wall to the left as the door is opened. This virtually completely blanks off the view of Madeleines bed, just the bottom corner can be seen. Madeleine would have been completely out of sight until Kate stepped in and saw around that wall.
This wall is also the reason why Matt didn't see Madeleine when he checked. He didn't step into the room and she was out of sight, behind that wall, if she was there, of course.
Until someone stepped far enough into the room she was out of sight, so the last to be seen. Hidden in Plain Sight, as you say
I presume you are meaning, if the shutter was 'down''.
With the shutter in its normal closed position, there are slots within it that allow a little light to shine through. Also a light was left on in the sitting room. This would shine in enough to illuminate the room and show who was in bed.
madeleine p71 "I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.
A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. Retracing my steps, I confirmed that I hadn't."
Kate describes a situation in which the door should not have slammed shut.
I don't know why Gerry found it absolutely necessary to do his visit so soon after Matt returned at 9pm but he must have had his reasons, though it can't have been to do with the quality of Matt's checking as he was quite content for Matt to go instead of Kate later.
How does one open the shutters from the outside? I've seen them lifted up manually from the outside but they then fall down as soon as you let them go.
Wasn't it the football he wanted to see?
Two possibilities.
1. If window is also open, just reach in and pull tape to lift shutter.
2. If window not open push shutter up as far as possible and jam it in position.
OK in that situation you can get the front door to slam even when it is quite open for there is a full gust of wind through the house. That happens. What happens if there is little to no breeze?
Don't think he has ever made any mention of that.
If football was so important he could have had a takeaway.
Would that not leave the shutter in the up position? Surely if that were the case, others should have observed the shutter in that position.
Didn't Kate make the comment to one of the other members of the tapas group about him taking so long and the answer came back that he was probably watching the football. In reality though Gerry says he went to the toilet while in the apartment and had that chat with Jez which accounted for the time.
You can also drop it from outside by simply releasing the tape, drop the shutter onto your arms. Removing your arms allows the shutter to drop onto the sill.
Clearly demonstrates that she wasn't intending to do a visual check but simply intended to listen at the patio door for anything untoward.
Two possibilities.Over the years no one has shown us a way to jam it up in the raised position. We don't have these types of shutters in NZ so I have no experience of jamming them myself.
1. If window is also open, just lift shutter about six inches, reach in and pull tape to lift shutter up.
2. If window not open push shutter up as far as possible and jam it in position.
Kate demonstrates this in this video, you will only have to watch the first minute.IMO she demonstrates it perfectly well. The place is not apartment 5A so the dimensions are not perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
Would that not leave the shutter in the up position? Surely if that were the case, others should have observed the shutter in that position.Also if it was jammed up it may not be possible to lower it from the inside.
You can also drop it from outside by simply releasing the tape, drop the shutter onto your arms. Removing your arms allows the shutter to drop onto the sill.Is that like if you find a shutter up you can lower it from the outside by that method?
Kate McCann say's she can see the twins in their cot, does she mean one cot or two cot's. If there is a light in the vicinity of where Kate was standing behind the bedroom door then the first light in the bedroom would be along side the bedroom wall that Maddie was lying next to, the wall which Maddie's bed lay length ways and the foot of the bed being close to the door. Light is a little bit like human vision it can sometimes act in a similar way. As I have stated several times, when opening a door further and further a bigger picture of whats behind the door is formed. Light is exactly the same.
Doing experiments is a real eye opener
Kate McCann say's she can see the twins in their cot, does she mean one cot or two cot's. If there is a light in the vicinity of where Kate was standing behind the bedroom door then the first light in the bedroom would be along side the bedroom wall that Maddie was lying next to, the wall which Maddie's bed lay length ways and the foot of the bed being close to the door. Light is a little bit like human vision it can sometimes act in a similar way. As I have stated several times, when opening a door further and further a bigger picture of whats behind the door is formed. Light is exactly the same.
Doing experiments is a real eye opener
Kate McCann say's she can see the twins in their cot, does she mean one cot or two cot's. If there is a light in the vicinity of where Kate was standing behind the bedroom door then the first light in the bedroom would be along side the bedroom wall that Maddie was lying next to, the wall which Maddie's bed lay length ways and the foot of the bed being close to the door. Light is a little bit like human vision it can sometimes act in a similar way. As I have stated several times, when opening a door further and further a bigger picture of whats behind the door is formed. Light is exactly the same."Kate McCann say's she can see the twins in their cot, does she mean one cot or two cot's." Two cots.
Doing experiments is a real eye opener
"Kate McCann say's she can see the twins in their cot, does she mean one cot or two cot's." Two cots.
"If there is a light in the vicinity of where Kate was standing behind the bedroom door then the first light in the bedroom would be along side the bedroom wall that Maddie was lying next to, the wall which Maddie's bed lay length ways and the foot of the bed being close to the door."
I agree about the "the foot of the bed being close to the door" but the rest is incorrect.
"Light is a little bit like human vision it can sometimes act in a similar way. As I have stated several times, when opening a door further and further a bigger picture of whats behind the door is formed. Light is exactly the same." Not exactly physics.
Assessing evidence is a real eye opener.. It's something I do on a daily basis... I reckon I'm pretty good at it
You provide a cite last night that simply did not support your case.
Indeed, but we can also read what Gerry has to say about him looking in the bedroom he saw Madeleine, had a proud dad moment, but never mentioned the twins- seeing them when he looked in. So where is this light coming from. if it was windy and the 'abductor is quite near with his jemmy tool wating to get in grab Maddie to be seen by Jane Tanner as she passed Gerry... yeah fast worker this 'abductor'...
So what's your problem?My problem is your physics.
Go open any door that leads to a dark room and tell me what you see first.
This something I do not understand.
The Tapas group made comments about how KMcC discussed she was concerned about MBM at the dinner table that night.
E.g.
FP Rogatory:
1485
'Alright. Do you recall on the Tuesday night, I believe, Madeleine crying or somebody from the McCANN's apartment crying''
Reply
'I thought that was Wednesday night. You see, I mean, I only knew about that because on Thursday night Kate had said, erm, as we were chatting at the table 'Oh', you know, 'I wonder', you know, 'what', 'what she cried about' or, you know, she'd asked Madeleine, erm, because I think Madeleine had said something 'Where were you mummy, me and Sean cried' and, you know, 'where were you' and that had obviously worried Kate and she couldn't get anything more out of Madeleine, Madeleine had sort of moved on and, you know, didn't say anything more than that and wouldn't say, you know, whether she'd heard anything or been woken up or whether she had just woken up herself'
1485
'Yeah'.
Reply
'So that was on her mind'.
1485
'Right. So Kate told you that that happened on the Wednesday''
Reply
'Well she told me about it on the Thursday'.
1485
'Told you on the Thursday, yeah'.
Reply
'So, yeah, thinking now, I just was thinking it was the Wednesday night'.
00.12.42
1485
'But you can't remember whether she said it was Wednesday night that it happened''
Reply
'No, I can't say that she said it was the night before'.
1485
'Right'.
Reply
'But I know I heard about it on the Thursday night when we were sat, sat down'.
--------------
I do not really understand why KMcC did not immediately check on MBM when she saw the door open - given that she had discussed concerns with the Tapas group at the table.
I'm not reading a lot into it, but it appears incongruous given the concerns expressed earlier not to make a proper check as soon as the door was seen to be open. It is arguable that delegating a check to MO, when you had concerns, was not the most appropriate option if there were concerns.
My problem is your physics.
"Go open any door that leads to a dark room and tell me what you see first." how much light back lights the area you are looking at? How close to the door are you standing?
Maybe watch the video again and then watch it again and again and again.Well Kate tells you she could see Sean and Amelie but not Madeleine. Then she went into the room and the curtains whooshed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
This really is the saddest (from little Maddies point of view) to the strangest of situations ever in this whole sorry story. [I always try and look at these threads with Maddies view of things].
Madeleine was upset her parents left them alone, she pointed this out and yet, the selfish parents ignored her, and did the same thing the very next night. Now the parents knew the children were waking up during the night when they were out, What were they thinking..
I also find Kate telling this story to be strange- there is no beginning and no end to it? just a couple of brief words from Madeleine which came out of no where for no reason?
Well Kate tells you she could see Sean and Amelie but not Madeleine. Then she went into the room and the curtains whooshed.
I disbelieved this statement as a red herring and I still do.Fiona said "'But I know I heard about it on the Thursday night when we were sat, sat down'." How can that be a red herring?
Like I have said before, Gerry didn't have a problem seeing Maddie sleeping in her bed but no mention of the twins earlier, so why the big problem with Kate seeing Maddie's bedAs I proved in a previous thread Gerry didn't hesitate to turn on the light, but Kate admits she didn't turn on the lights for she didn't want to wake the kids.
As I proved in a previous thread Gerry didn't hesitate to turn on the light, but Kate admits she didn't turn on the lights for she didn't want to wake the kids.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7981.msg387925#msg387925
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7846.msg371270#msg371270
As I proved in a previous thread Gerry didn't hesitate to turn on the light, but Kate admits she didn't turn on the lights for she didn't want to wake the kids.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7981.msg387925#msg387925
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7846.msg371270#msg371270
Gerry has never said he turned on the light. He said in the reconstruction to Matt that he went through the patio side because it was quiet and the front way was not i.e. not to disturb the children and wake them so turning on a light to possibly wake them does not add up! It is a total contradiction!
Nothing in his statement about turning on the bedroom light.
"they entered the apartment, in which one of the lounge lights was lit.
Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced.
In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
madeleine p71 "I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.So what if the patio door in the parents bedroom was slightly ajar? Cool it off in the absence of Air con. Nothing worse for sleeping than an overheated bedroom
A little surprised, I turned to see if I'd left the patio doors open and let in the breeze. Retracing my steps, I confirmed that I hadn't."
Kate describes a situation in which the door should not have slammed shut.
Yesssssssssssssssssss. see someone else spotted that. My police friend said just that!
Also the light... it was dark she couldn't see Maddie, but she could see the twins in their cots? Gerry saw Maddie when he had his doting dad moment so was someone switching on and off lights or what?
Why did the door not slam shut when it was first opened then? Gerry saw Maddie on top of her bed when he claimed he looked in on her. IMO the one and only physical check he did that week. What a coincidence. He also said later that he 'felt' the abductor was in the apartment- so no blowing. whooshing for him then. and what about the Matt Check- nope all was quiet.. did he give a measurement of the door at all when he held his ear to it? I can't recall.
The next windy day see if you can get a door to slam shut.You need a thru draft. In other words outside openings on both sides of the door.
It was gusty that evening, and IIRC a storm was brewing. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.
Gusts come and go.
On what do you base your thoughts that there was only one physical check that night and it happened to be that night? Any real evidence?
As for Matt, he made two checks that night for The Mccanns.
1} Are you talking about the first check when he held his ear by the shutters (window)
or,
2) are you talking about when he entered the apartment later and did a visual check, but unfortunately he never entered the bedroom and never saw Madeleine because of that wall we were talkiing about earlier. This was NOT a listening check per se, but a visual one
or,
3) have you got the two checks totally mixed up ?
I don't know why Gerry found it absolutely necessary to do his visit so soon after Matt returned at 9pm but he must have had his reasons, though it can't have been to do with the quality of Matt's checking as he was quite content for Matt to go instead of Kate later.
Are you making this up as you go along? Please point me in the direction of Matt making two trips to the McCanns apartment.
It was to do with the quality of Matts check IMO. Matt only listened at the window shutters. On the first check he did not visually check.
And how do you know what Gerry used the loo for? Some people prefer not to use (semi) public loos for certain things.
How does one open the shutters from the outside? I've seen them lifted up manually from the outside but they then fall down as soon as you let them go.Perhaps the person who opened them did it Heris style?
If I have my front door open and someone walks through my back door, my front door slams shut.No, not another wind source, BUT a wind exit route via somewhere on another side of the building, so that the high pressure build up on the one side can escape to the low pressure area on the other side ... causing the draft
There does need to be another wind source.
How could she see the Baby in the brown cot, it's behind the bedroom door.
Clearly demonstrates that she wasn't intending to do a visual check but simply intended to listen at the patio door for anything untoward.Patio door? Do you mean the bedroom door, John?
IMO, Sadie was referring to the wall immediately on your left as you enter the children's bedroom. I believe the point she was making was that it was necessary to physically stick you head into the room to see all of Madeleine's bed.
Thank you, John. 8((()*/
Well described, however it would need a step into the room imo, to see if Madeleine was alright
Interesting, letting the breeze in the patio door would have opened the children's bedroom door and not closed it.
Soz, but not right John. The prevailing wind (high pressure) was from the northwest, IIRC and the lower pressure was to the southeast.
Going from High pressure to Low pressure means that the bedroom door would close and the patio window curtains would flutter in a southerly direction. Just the same as the door in Madeleines room and also the curtains, they fluttered in a southerly direction.
Or at least put your head through the doorway.Depends on how long your neck is!
Thank you, John. 8((()*/
Well described, however it would need a step into the room imo, to see if Madeleine was alright
Depends on how long your neck is!
So how did Gerry see all this and Kate didn't?
Kate's demonstration of checking Madeleine's bed. She didn't need to enter the room when she could lean forward/in regardless of neck length.You still only can see what is lit up sufficiently to see it. Where Madeleine slept was a dark corner I'd imagine
(https://image.ibb.co/frOETy/kmcheckingbed.jpg)
Jose Batista the waiter who served the Tapas 9 group for four consecutive nights in a row said that it was only the Men in the group that checked the Children regularly, It was only on the 3rd of May at 10pm that Kate left the table to check the Children.Now you are asking the right question.
Not forgetting Gerry had to remind Kate at 10pm it was her turn to check on the Children.
So you have to ask yourself, what was so different about this night, why the change in routine?
You still only can see what is lit up sufficiently to see it. Where Madeleine slept was a dark corner I'd imagine
Kate McCann said she found the door more open than how we'd left it, so why at that time didn't Kate see all 3 Children?You will have to ask her for nothing I say will make you any the wiser.
You still only can see what is lit up sufficiently to see it. Where Madeleine slept was a dark corner I'd imagine
Kate's demonstration of checking Madeleine's bed. She didn't need to enter the room when she could lean forward/in regardless of neck length.
(https://image.ibb.co/frOETy/kmcheckingbed.jpg)
Kate's version on her check was very different in her statement on the 4th May 2007.They weren't writing down what Kate said so we don't know what she actually said.
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
No mention of the curtains whooshing, no mention of the door slamming.
You still only can see what is lit up sufficiently to see it. Where Madeleine slept was a dark corner I'd imagine
Looking at this photo again, before entering the bedroom you walk through a small alcove which I presume would almost be in shadow.
I can't see how the light could light up bedroom, it would have been blocked by the alcove, light doesn't find itself around corners.
Jose Batista the waiter who served the Tapas 9 group for four consecutive nights in a row said that it was only the Men in the group that checked the Children regularly, It was only on the 3rd of May at 10pm that Kate left the table to check the Children.
Not forgetting Gerry had to remind Kate at 10pm it was her turn to check on the Children.
So you have to ask yourself, what was so different about this night, why the change in routine?
Looking at this photo again, before entering the bedroom you walk through a small alcove which I presume would almost be in shadow.The bedroom window? There is a street lamp just outside.
I can't see how the light could light up bedroom, it would have been blocked by the alcove, light doesn't find itself around corners.
You still only can see what is lit up sufficiently to see it. Where Madeleine slept was a dark corner I'd imagine
I'd like to know that, because from the photos shown it would appear to be nowhere near. Perhaps it's a different light.
I think you may have got it in one when you say ... perhaps it is a different light.
Position of street light 4/5/07
Looking at this photo again, before entering the bedroom you walk through a small alcove which I presume would almost be in shadow.I'm not sure what I'm looking at there.
I can't see how the light could light up bedroom, it would have been blocked by the alcove, light doesn't find itself around corners.
In relationship to where?
The closest one to 5A bedroom window, Have I lost the plot somewhere?I would like to know how much light could have come through the open shutters and open curtains.
The closest one to 5A bedroom window, Have I lost the plot somewhere?
This is May 2007 - can't you see the 3 lamp posts?
(https://bilder3.n-tv.de/img/incoming/origs19814918/1322539623-w1280-h960/1ad15a9d3fcb2ef8141054761aa08949.jpg)
https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/In-Praia-da-Luz-wuerde-man-gern-vergessen-article19814942.html
I can't see the window. Is it guessing time?
The Children's bedroom is very clear in the picture, the outside of the apartment has had some building work, the bedroom window runs flush with the outside wall now.
The Children's bedroom is very clear in the picture, the outside of the apartment has had some building work, the bedroom window runs flush with the outside wall now.Which picture are you talking about?
Yes, if the 3rd one is near a man in a dark top with a white logo on his back - toward extreme right of photo. I cannot see a lamp near the children's bedroom window
I can't see the window. Is it guessing time?
That's because there isn't one and that is why some time after Madeleine's disappearance a flood light appeared mounted above Mrs Fenns balcony.The apartment looked nothing like this on the night in other words! Where have all the trees gone?
(http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/1289847/stream_img.jpg)
So not representative of 2007 then.
Here is the bedroom window.
Surely that is the kitchen window. The kid's bedroom is to the right of the front door.I am starting to wonder about Robin's understanding of the layout. Robin you have the layout completely wrong.
I am starting to wonder about Robin's understanding of the layout. Robin you have the layout completely wrong.
I am starting to wonder about Robin's understanding of the layout. Robin you have the layout completely wrong.
I don't think so, the layout of the apartment is exactly the same as it was in 2007, but the exterior of the apartment has changed. The front door exterior of the property has all been bricked in, so you can't see into the patio area where the front door was.True. It is your understanding that I'm claiming is totally wrong. Look at a floor plan of the apartment.
The apartment looked nothing like this on the night in other words! Where have all the trees gone?
Yes - when will they ever learn?
Gone for firewood every one When will they ever learn,when will they ever learn?
True. It is your understanding that I'm claiming is totally wrong. Look at a floor plan of the apartment.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/maddie_plan.jpg)
Very basic plan.
That is the kitchen window. The children's bedroom window is opposite the car park next to the Oldfield's bedroom window.The pointer was toward the lounge window IMO.
The exterior used to look like this.Do you see the #1 on the floor plan? That is the kid's bedroom window.
The exterior used to look like this.
The pointer was toward the lounge window IMO.
Do you see the #1 on the floor plan? That is the kid's bedroom window.
The exterior used to look like this.
Yes that's the car park in front of the window.So we can be certain there was no vegetation adjacent to the bedroom window on the night. But around the light at a car park entrance there was a tree.
Robin - before you post anymore on this topic get the layout correct please.
So we can be certain there was no vegetation adjacent to the bedroom window on the night. But around the light at a car park entrance there was a tree.
Also there were trees along the car park wall (West side).
Front door to me means front door, usually the first door to the dwelling.It will take a bit of time to readjust your thoughts now that you realise you were a little confused.
Yes It seems I have got the layout of the property very wrong, sorry about that Folks.
It will take a bit of time to readjust your thoughts now that you realise you were a little confused.
Yes, I'm feeling a little bit silly now, thanks for trying to save my embarrassment.There are some really good people here that will help you.
There are some really good people here that will help you.
No. Post 194 shows a lot of foliage in May 2007Can you tell when that photo was taken? The article is in German https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/In-Praia-da-Luz-wuerde-man-gern-vergessen-article19814942.html but nothing that identifies the date the photo was taken.
Can you tell when that photo was taken? The article is in German https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/In-Praia-da-Luz-wuerde-man-gern-vergessen-article19814942.html but nothing that identifies the date the photo was taken.
You can see GNR officers and media at the car park entrance so it would be days following the disappearance.My eyes must be getting worse. But you are right I zoomed in and I can see a police tape across the car park.
Actually Robin you should be made very welcome here as you are... This is a forum where views can be challenged and discussed in a civilized manner....
So letting the breeze in the patio door could never have happened that night, but letting it out was a possibility since it would have come in the bedroom window.Yep, gases move from high pressure to low pressure ... and on to further low pressure
It depend how close to the door the checker was. If as you imply it would be normal to listen first then ear to door, open door with head close then first view is Madeleine not twins.Nah, slarti. It would be totally unnatural to crane your neck forward that far. Far easier to put one foot inside the room or even step right in. First view would be the twins then Madeleine upon stepping in.
Jose Batista the waiter who served the Tapas 9 group for four consecutive nights in a row said that it was only the Men in the group that checked the Children regularly, It was only on the 3rd of May at 10pm that Kate left the table to check the Children.So Baptista was monitoring them THAT CLOSELY ? I wonder ?
Not forgetting Gerry had to remind Kate at 10pm it was her turn to check on the Children.
So you have to ask yourself, what was so different about this night, why the change in routine?
Kate McCann said she found the door more open than how we'd left it, so why at that time didn't Kate see all 3 Children?
So Baptista was monitoring them THAT CLOSELY ? I wonder ?
My eyes must be getting worse. But you are right I zoomed in and I can see a police tape across the car park.
That photo is so interesting considering who might be taking the photo and who is in the foreground.
IMO it has captured suspect #1. I can't be sure, but it is really odd.
(https://bilder3.n-tv.de/img/incoming/origs19814918/1322539623-w1280-h960/1ad15a9d3fcb2ef8141054761aa08949.jpg)
Looking at this photo again, before entering the bedroom you walk through a small alcove which I presume would almost be in shadow.As Davel says , light does reflect to some extent off white walls .
I can't see how the light could light up bedroom, it would have been blocked by the alcove, light doesn't find itself around corners.
Gerry said he could see Madeleine without turning on the light so another contradiction. If you said he did then you can cite it because you won't find it any of his statements. These little things to many are trivial but can be infact the opposite.Especially as it appears that Gerry went right into the bedroom to look at Madeleine (and presumably the twins), his body woud not have been blocking the path of the light coming in from the sitting room. And his eyes would have had longer to adjust to the darkness than someone just taking one step in then leaving immediately.
"He (Gerry) glanced into our room to make sure Madeleine hadn’t wandered in there, as she was prone to do if ever she woke in the small hours. Seeing no little body curled up in our bed, he went over to look in on the children.
Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers, in exactly the same position as we’d left her." (Madeleine)
Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
As Davel says , light does reflect to some extent off white walls .
But what you haven't taken into account Robin, is the fact that The Mccanns left a lamp on in the sitting room, so the alcove would be lit from that.
Position of street light 4/5/07And you cant see it, because its lamp is hidden in the foliage of the trees. Right in the middle of the head of the tree.
I would like to know how much light could have come through the open shutters and open curtains.
The Children's bedroom is very clear in the picture, the outside of the apartment has had some building work, the bedroom window runs flush with the outside wall now.No, I dont think that you can see the childrens bedroom Robin. The trees mask the ground floor hiding the walled passageway and the front door and Madeleines window.
And you cant see it, because its lamp is hidden in the foliage of the trees. Right in the middle of the head of the tree.
Not a lot of light coming from there to light the bedroom or the car park outside, is there?
Thanks for posting that image misty. When I mentioned it before I had only worked it out from GEarth plan images .... and I dont know how to post those.
The apartment looked nothing like this on the night in other words! Where have all the trees gone?
Yes there would have been light in that car park from that street lamp.Not a lot, because the lamp head is in the middle of the tree head
Front door to me means front door, usually the first door to the dwelling.
Yes It seems I have got the layout of the property very wrong, sorry about that Folks.
As Davel says , light does reflect to some extent off white walls .
But what you haven't taken into account Robin, is the fact that The Mccanns left a lamp on in the sitting room, so the alcove would be lit from that.
Can you tell when that photo was taken? The article is in German https://www.n-tv.de/panorama/In-Praia-da-Luz-wuerde-man-gern-vergessen-article19814942.html but nothing that identifies the date the photo was taken.
We all make mistakes Robin. It is good that you acnowledge it and have apologised.
As Rob says it might take you a time to understand the correct layout, but it will come.
So much to learn; its a big case ... and confusiion between which was the front door and which was the back door in the early days didn't help
Yes a lamp Sadie and not a main light, it would have been a very low wattage, so just a dull light. Which wouldn't of lit the alcove like the rest of the room, the alcove would have been in a shadow, thus allowing no light to the bedroom that the Children occupied.
Sunset in Luz was 8.23pm on 3/5/07 iirc. There is a half hour of daylight after sunset before civil twilight commences which is "lighting up time". There would still be enough daylight at 9.10pm to see outside and the children's bedroom would not be in total darkness due to the open slats in the shutters. Gerry would have been able to see Madeleine in her bed without a great deal of difficulty.
By the time Kate got to the apartment, night darkness had fallen. Madeleine's bed was in the darkest part of the room, hence Kate could not see her as clearly as the twins in their cots closer to any street light penetrating the open window/shutters.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro to show variations of daylight/twilight times.
As Davel says , light does reflect to some extent off white walls .
But what you haven't taken into account Robin, is the fact that The Mccanns left a lamp on in the sitting room, so the alcove would be lit from that.
And a thank you from me too, just goes to show the Chidren's bedroom was darker than I ever imagined. Also it was a very unnatural environment for Children to sleep in, bit like a room without a window.A lot of Continental Countries use shutters primarily, so i guess it is completely natural to them, even if strange to us, the first time we come across them.
I used to work in a very well known nightclub in London that had many alcoves, I know how alcoves and light works, people are attracted to alcoves because they are dark and private, most drug deals are committed in such area's Sadie because of the darkness and privacy. The Alcove shielded light from the bedroom, it didn't provide any light in my opinion.Night clubs tend to have black /dark walls. Such walls absorb the light and do not reflect. White walls bounce the light off them and do illuminate to a certain extent.
If someone can prove me wrong I'm up for that, I don't have a problem with apologizing, you can't move forward if you think you are always right Sadie.
Night clubs tend to have black /dark walls. Such walls absorb the light and do not reflect. White walls bounce the light off them and do illuminate to a certain extent.
Suggest you try it in youir own hom. It happens like that in ours.
This nightclub is renowned for it's spectacular light show Sadie, It's not a dark gloomy place Sadie it celebrates light and colourful Visuals that floods the club, but the alcoves are hidden by darkness
And i bet the alcoves have dark / black matt walls?
Nah, slarti. It would be totally unnatural to crane your neck forward that far. Far easier to put one foot inside the room or even step right in. First view would be the twins then Madeleine upon stepping in.
A strange way of checking on children you are worried about waking IMO.
Par for the course though.
Every McCann thought, action and word is strange ? or unusual? or different from the norm? not what one would expect, ?not as most people would do?
In the eyes of some. IMO.
From the photos of 5A can we work out where the light in the lounge was positioned?
Sadie’s theory appears to rely on Kate opening the door at arms length so seeing the cots first. I just suggested it more likely a tentative opening with eyes and ear close to door hence seeing Madeleine first. See #168
I don't think Kate intended to open the door. Initially she was pulling it towards the position it was usually left in when it suddenly slammed. She opened it only to find out the reason for that happening.
So why didn't the door slam shut as soon as she came in - or had already slammed shut before she entered.
Theoretically the door was too wide open to be affected by any wind and only when it was almost closed did the wind have any effect.
well i think that would be if it was flat against the wall - otherwise if not it would slam.
My eyes must be getting worse. But you are right I zoomed in and I can see a police tape across the car park.
That photo is so interesting considering who might be taking the photo and who is in the foreground.
IMO it has captured suspect #1. I can't be sure, but it is really odd.
(https://bilder3.n-tv.de/img/incoming/origs19814918/1322539623-w1280-h960/1ad15a9d3fcb2ef8141054761aa08949.jpg)
Think it would depend upon the strength of the wind.
We have no idea about the position of the door, other than what Kate says.
I would have thought that opening the patio door might cause sufficient draft, but I wasn't there to observe.
Was open much further than they left it, but not wide open -
Wouldn't you have thought the first instinct would have been to check maddie - as it could have been her who got out of bed and opened it.
well i think that would be if it was flat against the wall - otherwise if not it would slam.It wasn't a howling gale that night!
https://www.google.com/search?q=interior+of+5A++Mccann&safe=off&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj__evP64nbAhVE_qQKHViHBlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1277&bih=760#imgdii=2f0MzmfCaRza7M:&imgrc=l1xoDISuGXVjiM:
It wasn't a howling gale that night!
What force was required to move the door from its position of equilibrium then?Kate herself started the door moving.
Kate herself started the door moving.
Kate herself started the door moving.
"Door B shows entrance to children's bedroom and door A points to the entrance to the apartment."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041216/Pictured-The-bedroom-Madeleine-McCann-vanished-Portugal.html#ixzz5FfE6wcKv
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/04/article-1041216-022B288000000578-699_468x303.jpg)
When you understand the position of that lamp in the lounge one can really understand why Kate and Matt could see the twins but not around the corner to where Madeleine slept.
Thanking you for that help Jassi.
"Door B shows entrance to children's bedroom and door A points to the entrance to the apartment."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041216/Pictured-The-bedroom-Madeleine-McCann-vanished-Portugal.html#ixzz5FfE6wcKv
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/04/article-1041216-022B288000000578-699_468x303.jpg)
When you understand the position of that lamp in the lounge one can really understand why Kate and Matt could see the twins but not around the corner to where Madeleine slept.
Thanking you for that help Jassi.
It was also taken from a position identified by Heriberto as offering a good overall view of everyone coming and going to block 5. A private apartment block called Edificio Crystaluz Lote 3.
There are two lamps in the lounge, one standing just outside the alcove and one sitting on a shelf, If the McCanns left the standing lamp on then light would have entered the bedroom. However if they left the small table lamp on which was being obstructed by the kitchen hatch. then no light from the lounge would reach the children's bedroom. Kate say's herself that she didn't want to put the light on just in case she woke the children, which tells me the children sleep in darkness so the small table lamp would be sufficient enough.
The standing lamp in the lounge was on.
No, she had carefully reset it in to the position of her preference. The door was thus stationary.well whether it was stationary or still in the motion of being reset is a moot point. From what I have heard her say the two actions happened very close temporarily.
According to Matthew only one light was on in the apartment and it wasn't that one.I can't see how you say that disproves it.
I think there was a sofa here and a sofa here, it's either one of those two corners, it was a vague memory of it, that there was like a sort of little side light, a sort of reading light that was on'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
If this is a good view what did the poor view look like?A view from Jez Wilkins's balcony would be a poor view as you only get to see one side of the apartment.
Mathew Oldfield describes a table lamp.How do you know. Are you backing what Matt Oldfield says 100%? I know a lot of people have doubts about Matt's check.
The standing lamp in the lounge was on.
Theoretically the door was too wide open to be affected by any wind and only when it was almost closed did the wind have any effect.
How do you know. Are you backing what Matt Oldfield says 100%? I know a lot of people have doubts about Matt's check.
Is there a cite for that?Matt admits his memory of the situation is poor
Looking at it logically I would assume the standing lamp is the obvious candidate for anyone using the patio door ~ it would illuminate the whole room. I think somewhere it was said the bedroom door had been pulled over to cut the light from the lamp? if so the standing lamp is my candidate ... also did Matthew not browse some books? Couldn't have done that in the dark.
Matt admits his memory of the situation is poor
" from the rogatory: "4078 'And you have walked through the apartment and you said there was a light on''
Reply 'Yeah'.
4078 'A lamp, sorry, a table lamp''
Reply 'Yeah, I think sort of, there was like a little sort of round sort of table like this and then, erm, sort of a small lamp'.
4078 'So, as you go though there, whereabouts would the lamp be''
Reply 'So you come in, the steps would bring you up to this end of the patio, oh sorry, that's the side street so it comes up to this bit and you go in through (inaudible), erm, I'm not sure which one of those, I think it was this left one here and there's sort of like, erm, a sort of a book shelf here'.
4078 'Is that the one that you looked at to see what books''
Reply 'Yeah, and there was, I think there was a sofa here and a sofa here, it's either one of those two corners, it was a vague memory of it, that there was like a sort of little side light, a sort of reading light that was on'.
4078 'Okay'.
Reply 'Erm, then as you approach this, because of this wall here, you approach the room pretty much, you had to go in from that angle, so you get a clear view right into the middle of the room. "
The physics of that tell me the lamp was placed in a position that when the door was open it gave "a clear view right into the middle of the room". That is something only the standing light will do.
Well he didn't say that in his interview on April 9th 2008.
Well he didn't say that in his interview on April 9th 2008.Wrong again for that is exactly where it came from. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm "WEDNESDAY 09 APRIL 2008"
Well what did he say then? In his 10th May 2007 interview he says the following "That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.
The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.
Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed."
The physics of that means that as he approached the door he would have blocked the light from the lamp yet he sense more light in the room that was coming from the outside. [But it doesn't register as odd at the time.]
Well I believe him about the table lamp being on the right hand side when he walked into the apartment, it's in the photo. He didn't mention the small table lamp on the kitchen hatch, he's talking about the small table lamp that's next to the sliding doors. Gosh, the light gets further and further.OK it could have been that reading lamp or the standing one but both appear to be inline with each other and capable to lighting up the kids bedroom. In the photos that light appear switched off. I find that strange that someone would switch the reading lamp off.
So I went back and did the check on five 'A', on Madeleine and the kids, erm, and went back through the patio entrance, so through the gate, through the patio doors, erm, there was, it was light enough to see through the apartment and there sort of a little table light on the right at the end of the sofa and when you walk into the room, you could see straight into it, because the door was open.
Wrong again for that is exactly where it came from. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm "WEDNESDAY 09 APRIL 2008"
Is there a cite for that?
Looking at it logically I would assume the standing lamp is the obvious candidate for anyone using the patio door ~ it would illuminate the whole room. I think somewhere it was said the bedroom door had been pulled over to cut the light from the lamp? if so the standing lamp is my candidate ... also did Matthew not browse some books? Couldn't have done that in the dark.
OK it could have been that reading lamp or the standing one but both appear to be inline with each other and capable to lighting up the kids bedroom. In the photos that light appear switched off. I find that strange that someone would switch the reading lamp off.
The photographers would put lights on and turn lights off to get the best perspective of the room.
Remember to put "in your opinion" when it is opinion. Without IMO you could be asked to provide cites. I don't think you will be able to provide a cite for "the photographers would put lights on and turn lights off to get the best perspective of the room", so it seems to me to be your opinion.
It was dark outside, without enough light in the room the photo would be unrecognizable, so yes in my opinion the person who took this photo put light on to get the best perspective of the room.OK Lights were turned on but we don't know who did that surely?
OK Lights were turned on but we don't know who did that surely?
It is unknowable...IMO
But what we do know is:
Gerry looked in the slightly open door and saw MBM on her bed- he never mentioned seeing the twins or mentioned their sleeping position?
Kate looked in the slightly open door NEVER and saw MBM on her bed- she mentioned seeing the twins sleeping in their cots.
This added to Kate said she left MBM tucked up in bed it was a cold night
Gerry said he left MBM on top of the bed as it was warm...
Yeah I know.. They both forgot due to stress and stuff.. and like yeah OK already...
Mmmmmm, scratching one's chin, so I'm going to end this evening with this little tune, it says it all really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEx_ByPS9xQ
She didn't actually see Madeleine though, did she? Madeleine wasn't there to be seen.How did Kate know how the door had been left ? Gerry might not have left it on his alleged check in the exact position it was in when they both left the apartment earlier ?
You are undoubtedly mistaken regarding the sequence of events. Kate noticed the door was open further than it had been left ... she moved it to its usual position, in the process of which it slammed. She then opened it and looked into the room.
"I just noticed that the door … the bedroom door … where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and as I got to here it suddenly slammed ... " Kate McCann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw
How did Kate know how the door had been left ? Gerry might not have left it on his alleged check in the exact position it was in when they both left the apartment earlier ?
I can't agree with what you mention about the door not being in a position she liked. Imo she mentioned it to
emphasise her insistence that Madeleine had been taken.
Why didn't she consider Gerry had forgotten how she liked the door position ?
I can't agree with what you mention about the door not being in a position she liked. Imo she mentioned it to
emphasise her insistence that Madeleine had been taken.
Why didn't she consider Gerry had forgotten how she liked the door position ?
Gerry's statement 4th May 2007.
The witness and his wife, between this time and 20.30 stayed in the apartment relaxing and drinking a glass of wine. After 20.30, the witness and his wife, after looking at the children, went to the Tapas Bar, about 50 metres away, where they had dinner.
Gerry's statement 10th May 2007.
At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
----- At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.
----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced.
So on the 4th May they looked in the Children's bedroom before leaving for the Tapas bar, in the statement of the 10th of May they leave for the Tapas bar without looking into the Children's bedroom. He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark. He also states there was no light on in the lounge or kitchen which is believable as it would still be light outside.
So we have two respectable parents who didn't check to see if the Children were asleep before they left for the Tapas bar.
Gerry's statement 4th May 2007.
As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine. "He then went to the WC" where he remained for a few moments, left, and bumped into a person he had played tennis with and who had a child's push chair, he was also British, he had a short conversation with him, "returning after that to the restaurant.
In this statement Gerry uses his respected key as the door was locked, but fails to mention seeing the Children and fails to mention the door.
Gerry's statement 10th May 2007.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom.
In this statement there is No mention of a key and the door being locked, he also states that he had visual contact with the three Children and lots to say about the Children's bedroom door.
How these two statements conflict with each other is unbelievable.
&%%6
Hardly surprising.
None of the statements were recorded using modern technology.
The statements were not recorded verbatim,
We don't even know what if any questions were asked.
An added difficulty was the language barrier necessitating the use of interpreters.
If statements recorded under such circumstances had matched up perfectly ... that in my opinion could have been considerd unbelievable.
When Kate initially noticed the position of the door, she had absolutely no idea that Madeleine was missing.That would appear to be her story ?I don't have to believe it tho?
Only when she saw that Madeleine was not in her bed or anywhere in the apartment and the window was open and the shutter raised did she comprehend the absolute horror of the situation.
That would appear to be her story ?I don't have to believe it tho?Why would you not believe it?
This is only of relevance if the procedure was not in accordance with that laid down in the "Code of Practice".
Do you have any evidence whatever that the correct Portuguese protocols were not followed? If not game over.
Even in UK not all witness statements are recorded or videoed. Only the ones likely to be used in a prosecution case. But then metaphorically speaking I have "papered the walls" of this forum with the CPS procedure for such so I doubt anyone will pay any heed now either.
That would appear to be her story ?I don't have to believe it tho?
You mean video recordings ... or even audio recordings were unheard of as far as the recording of witness statements was concerned as far as Portuguese law enforcement was concerned?
Where does this protocol fit with the visit of the dogs to Luz which featured so prominently in the videos stamped with Levy's copyright and indicate a place for them in the Portuguese process or even lack of, which you outline.
Q:Did I say that?
A: No
Q to you: In that case why are you suggesting I said it or implied it.
While trawling about I found this apposite exchange between two posters named Icabodcrane & Gilet:
"You are funny gilet
You put such effort into presenting your posts in a suitably serious way ... when what you are actually saying is a load of old [ censored word ] nonsense"
When Kate initially noticed the position of the door, she had absolutely no idea that Madeleine was missing.
Only when she saw that Madeleine was not in her bed or anywhere in the apartment and the window was open and the shutter raised did she comprehend the absolute horror of the situation.
Why would she not think that maddie could have moved it. [first thought you would think]
Like if she had gone to toilet - why did she not look at maddies bed
When Kate initially noticed the position of the door, she had absolutely no idea that Madeleine was missing....and upon this discovery,told very eloquently, did she immediately call the police or call and scream for help? no... she ran away leaving the other two children- told MBM was /missing/abducted?, they all went to look for the abductor with MBM.in thecrime scene and outside... Gerry and Kate both screamed when the police arrived.
Only when she saw that Madeleine was not in her bed or anywhere in the apartment and the window was open and the shutter raised did she comprehend the absolute horror of the situation.
Why would she not think that maddie could have moved it. [first thought you would think]
Like if she had gone to toilet - why did she not look at maddies bed
It’s a mystery.
It's all of that.
"It wasn't at the angle we left it at/we thought it should be at/we would have liked it at".[delete as appropriate] ergo 'twere an abductor
No one should go on hols without one of these ....... just in case :
https://www.stanleytools.com/products/hand-tools/measuring-layout/squares/premium-adjustable-quick-square/46-053
Why would she not think that maddie could have moved it. [first thought you would think]
Like if she had gone to toilet - why did she not look at maddies bed
The bit I still fail to comprehend is why the childrens bedroom door slammed at all as Kate claims she closed the patio door behind her? If the patio door was closed there would not have been a through draft? All very mysterious indeed IMO.We looked at that question about a year ago, and there is a question mark over the window in the adult's bedroom window if that was ever closed properly. The shutters were down, but it has never been confirmed if the window was closed. I know we used the term Bi-fold so I wonder if it comes up on a search? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7643.msg358528#msg358528
The bit I still fail to comprehend is why the childrens bedroom door slammed at all as Kate claims she closed the patio door behind her? If the patio door was closed there would not have been a through draft? All very mysterious indeed IMO.
create a loud bang and everyone ducks... one person standing can grab the silver...straight from an Agnatha Christie movie ..
The bit I still fail to comprehend is why the childrens bedroom door slammed at all as Kate claims she closed the patio door behind her? If the patio door was closed there would not have been a through draft? All very mysterious indeed IMO.
Have you ever studied physics?
Same here....you would have thought the door would have slammed when patio door opened
oR if not... because the door was open wider....why didn't she see the curtains open and the draft 3 mtr away.
The bit I still fail to comprehend is why the childrens bedroom door slammed at all as Kate claims she closed the patio door behind her? If the patio door was closed there would not have been a through draft? All very mysterious indeed IMO.
Another PdL first..... an open window on the Southern side of the building IMO.
The cunning invisible device that inhibits pressure equilibrium in domestic buildings..... *%87
.... an open window on the Southern side of the building IMO.
.... an open window on the Southern side of the building IMO.
Have you ever studied physics?
You don't need a PHD in applied science to understand the movement of air around a single storey apartment.Even simple physics is all that is needed to answer the questions raised.
Even simple physics is all that is needed to answer the questions raised.
"Same here....you would have thought the door would have slammed when patio door opened
oR if not... because the door was open wider....why didn't she see the curtains open and the draft 3 mtr away."
Seeing is dependent on light and only once in the room did Kate become able to see into the low light intensity room.
Any slamming will be dependent on a gust of wind, and this could well have been of an intermittent nature as opposed to constantly blowing.
Even simple physics is all that is needed to answer the questions raised.
"Same here....you would have thought the door would have slammed when patio door opened
oR if not... because the door was open wider....why didn't she see the curtains open and the draft 3 mtr away."
Seeing is dependent on light and only once in the room did Kate become able to see into the low light intensity room.
Any slamming will be dependent on a gust of wind, and this could well have been of an intermittent nature as opposed to constantly blowing.
So if that was the case are you saying that the only gust of wind that night just happened to coincide with Kate's presence?It would have coincided with one of the gusts that night.
Why would you not believe it?
There are no other witnesses that saw the shutters up, apart from Gerry and Kate. None of the Tapas crew mentions seeing the shutters up, but they do mention Gerry and Kate telling them the shutters were up.So why do you discount what Amy Tierney says about the shutters being up?
So why do you discount what Amy Tierney says about the shutters being up?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding."
It would have coincided with one of the gusts that night.
I am trying to think of analogy that is easier to visualise for we can't see air moving around a door.
Think of a river where it is deep and wide the current moves slowly but over narrowed portions it moves rapidly.
Same with a door in a breeze the rate of air velocity will increase as the door is closed.
Only if the upstream pressure is increased accordingly or the flow rate reduces.If you can see the same effect caused by the river analogy I will agree with you entirely. The narrow portion of the river constricts the flow until the pressure rises as the river level will rise and hence there is an increased drop in pressure (height) through the rapid section.
If you can see the same effect caused by the river analogy I will agree with you entirely. The narrow portion of the river constricts the flow until the pressure rises the river level will rise and hence there is an increased drop through the rapid section.
So as you closed the door the pressure in the room rises and hence the flow velocity thorough the narrow portion will be faster than when the door was wide open.
If you would like to sketch it all up with some numbers chucked at it we will have a better appreciation of your point.A link to Euler's ideas would be appreciated.
As described it would seem to fly in the face of Bernoulli's and Euler's ideas.
Perhaps someone can explain the science behind the fact that my bedroom door swung open and then swung closed again all night long, bedroom window open, as is the window in another room on the first floor? Whatever it was, it was quite annoying!You should have got up and either opened it a little further or closed it completely.
You should have got up and either opened it a little further or closed it completely.I know but at the moment I am not very mobile so I left it.
I know but at the moment I am not very mobile so I left it.You did tell us what the issue was. Well my cat got the hang of slamming doors shut to wake me in the morning so she would get her morning feed, so I hang something over the door so it doesn't slam shut anymore.
You should have got up and either opened it a little further or closed it completely.
Perhaps someone can explain the science behind the fact that my bedroom door swung open and then swung closed again all night long, bedroom window open, as is the window in another room on the first floor? Whatever it was, it was quite annoying!
Simples:
Newton's First Law of Motion
Principles of Moments
Pressure always creating air movement from high pressure areas to low pressure areas.
A link to Euler's ideas would be appreciated.
Bernoulli ideas show a lowered pressure perpendicular to the gas flow. But that is unimportant for the door is held by the hinges from moving in the direction of that lowered pressure.
Simples:I take it these laws and principles apply in PdL, to curtains and doors and similar? I even observed my curtains billowing!
Newton's First Law of Motion
Principles of Moments
Pressure always creating air movement from high pressure areas to low pressure areas.
The sketches /plots, call 'em what you will, I have been asking for for about a fortnight might come in handy otherwise it's all idle chit chat going nowhere fast.Completely unnecessary IMO.
Try another angle:
What would be handy is to look at the situation as a problem which probably has a solution. Forget names!!! Also forget the blame game. That way lies erroneous solutions to problems aka "keep sticking your fingers in the fan". So:
The only known witness observes a particular event/ condition and records this historically.
What the witness observed occurred partway along the "flow train".
The process flow train has to work as a cohesive unit and follow the known accepted laws of mathematics and physics that apply to the process. In this case pretty much the gospel according to Daniel Bernoulli and Newton’s First Law of Motion.
Draw a process flow train of entire process. This comprises seven possibly nine elements/components for each of which the following will need to be known:-
V=volume as strict volume or mass m3 or Nm3 [but only one or the other not a mix and match to suit]
Q=flow rate as volumetric flow or mass flow [m3/hr or Nm3/hr]
p=pressure.
t=temperature if you want to be picky. Nodding it in I would say the temps are within a gnat’s wotsit of each other so I wouldn’t be picky about it; and don't forget the temps are in Kelvin.
Rho=density
From all that cobblers, here coom di croonch:
Q: Are the witness’ observations supported by the appropriate mathematics and physics ?
A Option 1: If “Yes”. Then in that case it could have happened but that does mean of necessity it did happen. The absence of corroborative evidence from further witnesses makes the evidence weak but this may turn out to be unimportant as an investigation* proceeds i.e it may turn out to be a good bit of circumstantial to lend weight to a particular side of the scales.
A Option2: If “No” then the witnesses observations were inaccurate, someone had just redefined Bernoulli’s Theorem and /or Newton’s First Law of Motion or someone was making it up…..which really leaves only two alternatives ; faites vos jeux or keep on investigating.
* the sort of investigations I did from time to time not police investigations ?{)(**
The bit I still fail to comprehend is why the childrens bedroom door slammed at all as Kate claims she closed the patio door behind her? If the patio door was closed there would not have been a through draft? All very mysterious indeed IMO.
So why do you discount what Amy Tierney says about the shutters being up?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding."
Gerry McCann on the 10th of May 2007
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
So Gerry closed the shutter from the inside of the apartment then went outside to try and open them, but no prints were found.
Gerry McCann on the 10th of May 2007But we know from Amy tierney that the shutter was raised so how was it raised with no finger prints left in the first place?
----- Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside.
So Gerry closed the shutter from the inside of the apartment then went outside to try and open them, but no prints were found.
But we know from Amy tierney that the shutter was raised so how was it raised with no finger prints left in the first place?
I take it these laws and principles apply in PdL, to curtains and doors and similar? I even observed my curtains billowing!
Completely unnecessary IMO.
He was obviously mindful not to disturb a potential crime scene by contaminating the shutter or window.
He was obviously mindful not to disturb a potential crime scene by contaminating the shutter or window.
Maybe it was never raised. Fiona Payne walked past the Children's bedroom window two or more times after she learnt Maddie was missing, to check on her own Children, surely if the shutter was open she would have seen light and heard hysterical voices from inside, she mentions none of this.So Amy Tierney is mistaken then in your view? Why do you think Fiona Payne would necessarily have mentioned what she saw when she went to check on her own children?
Maybe it was never raised. Fiona Payne walked past the Children's bedroom window two or more times after she learnt Maddie was missing, to check on her own Children, surely if the shutter was open she would have seen light and heard hysterical voices from inside, she mentions none of this.Does Fiona mention checking her own kids (Quote the passage please?)
He was obviously mindful not to disturb a potential crime scene by contaminating the shutter or window.That whole episode of Gerry and Dianne checking the shutters and yet leaving no finger prints on them has always worried me too. How is it possible? That would be a good thing to look at during a reconstruction.
OK so lets see your sums and sketches of what you think happens and why.I have explained it in physical principles. That is enough.
It's your show so knock it on the head one way or another.
Well he wasn't mindful was he, he changed the crime scene by opening and shutting the shutters.We've got Kate thinking it was an abduction but I don't see the same conclusion coming from Gerry or the others.
OK so lets see your sums and sketches of what you think happens and why.If you really feel it requires figures to be applied, could you tell me how much torque is required to move the children's bedroom door?
It's your show so knock it on the head one way or another.
I have explained it in physical principles. That is enough.
If you really feel it requires figures to be applied, could you tell me how much torque is required to move the children's bedroom door?
What is the door area in m^2?
If figures are not applied it's called guessing.With regard to the torque you must already know this otherwise you are in no position to make a definitive statement regarding the door being moved by wind force.We all know from personal experience doors move in a wind. We didn't have to do these complex calculations to prove it actually was the wind that did it.
Jump a figure for a typical internal door being 800 x 2040 with a mass ca 25kg.
Assume mu for hinges 0.25; assume the door and hinges are lined and levelled properly.
Over to you.
We all know from personal experience doors move in a wind. We didn't have to do these complex calculations to prove it actually was the wind that did it.
Yes you do, because it is usually a pressure difference rather than a a gust of wind blowing through a door.It could be either.
Yes you do, because it is usually a pressure difference rather than a a gust of wind blowing through a door.
Finally found some figures https://youtu.be/7-CYPdI3t9QIt is a breeze today and I set up a situation where the bathroom door would blow shut. The amount of pressure required to stop the door closing varies depending on the wind moment by moment but the minimum pressure would be far smaller than 5 pounds pressure.
OK that door had a self closing mechanism, but the figure of 5 pounds of force was used. That could be well over that required for a normally hinged door.
It is a breeze today and I set up a situation where the bathroom door would blow shut. The amount of pressure required to stop the door closing varies depending on the wind moment by moment but the minimum pressure would be far smaller than 5 pounds pressure.
At no time would I describe the door as slamming, as the wind is not strong enough.
When a door is on the move it gathers momentum, I have witnessed this many times.Whatever Kate experienced it must be somewhere in between what you experience and what I was playing with today.
When a door is on the move it gathers momentum, I have witnessed this many times.
I Have but only with the doors front door open back door slams or visa versaWere you closing the door like Kate said she was?
What i didn't try like in the childrens bedroom it was not two doors - it was a door window
Today [windy] i tried it - the same result open back door front door shut...but
When i opened kitchen window slightly biger than mccans - but same height window.... front door stayed open.
The gust of wind would have only blown through the window - nearly half way up the wall....also the curtain blocking any power of gust.
Hello, I am new here but I wanted to throw this in regarding the window.
Here is what gets me, since Russell was apparently in his apartment with the kids at 9 pm, but also in his apartment with a sick kid from 9-9:30 and someone took him his dinner...or he ate it there, why did Jane go check on Russell at 9:15? Didn't she trust Russell alone?
It doesn't make sense that the sliding glass door would be open if Gerry used his key at 9, but Kate might have gone through the sliding door.
Since Matthew Oldfield apparently got up at 9:30 to check on the kids, that's AFTER Jane checked on Russell and claimed to see the man carrying the child. Now, if the man WAS carrying the child in that manner, then how did he climb out the window with her?
Kate wouldn't see anything unless she turned the light on first. The curtains were tucked behind the bed and the chair. I do not recall her saying that she turned the light on, I think it assumed that she did at that moment.
OK maybe she didn't want to wake the kids up, but the subsequent turning on the light for the search, the twins did not wake up.
So in my opinion, she would not have seen anything unless the light was on. Anyway, that's my opinion.
Welcome to the forum KM.
As to your questions, followers of the case have been asking the same ones for over 11 years now.
Hello, I am new here but I wanted to throw this in regarding the window.Your timeline is rather unique in that you have Russell in the apartment a lot longer than he admits. I'd like to know how you come by that understanding?
Here is what gets me, since Russell was apparently in his apartment with the kids at 9 pm, but also in his apartment with a sick kid from 9-9:30 and someone took him his dinner...or he ate it there, why did Jane go check on Russell at 9:15? Didn't she trust Russell alone?
It doesn't make sense that the sliding glass door would be open if Gerry used his key at 9, but Kate might have gone through the sliding door.
Since Matthew Oldfield apparently got up at 9:30 to check on the kids, that's AFTER Jane checked on Russell and claimed to see the man carrying the child. Now, if the man WAS carrying the child in that manner, then how did he climb out the window with her?
Kate wouldn't see anything unless she turned the light on first. The curtains were tucked behind the bed and the chair. I do not recall her saying that she turned the light on, I think it assumed that she did at that moment.
OK maybe she didn't want to wake the kids up, but the subsequent turning on the light for the search, the twins did not wake up.
So in my opinion, she would not have seen anything unless the light was on. Anyway, that's my opinion.
Your timeline is rather unique in that you have Russell in the apartment a lot longer than he admits. I'd like to know how you come by that understanding?
It gets confusing now that Kate said Russell went back around the same time as Gerry. I think she got confused between Russell and Jane.
I was confused because there were reports about Russell either leaving the table, staying in with the children, someone taking him a plate of food, or him coming back to eat.
So why would Jane leave the table to check on her child only that many minutes after Russell had left and had/hadn't come back yet?
I was confused because there were reports about Russell either leaving the table, staying in with the children, someone taking him a plate of food, or him coming back to eat.Evie had been unwell that day so the O'Brien-Tanner crew were checking every 15 minutes or so. IMO.
So why would Jane leave the table to check on her child only that many minutes after Russell had left and had/hadn't come back yet?
Think if I'd had to contend with a sick child I wouldn't have bothered going out that evening. Takeaways seem to have been available.
Please confine comment to conform to the thread topic. Thank you
Were you closing the door like Kate said she was?
well seeing you asked.That would depend on how close she was. In her demonstration of the event she seems rather close and I have wondered about the draught too.
The door was in that position anyway - what i did feel was the strong draught on my face. waiting for it to slam
I also tried it wide open ...nothing - surely she would have seen window or felt draught first.if door open wider
well seeing you asked.
The door was in that position anyway - what i did feel was the strong draught on my face. waiting for it to slam
I also tried it wide open ...nothing - surely she would have seen window or felt draught first.if door open wider
You describe an exact situation in the side entrance of my home. If doors are open and it is windy one door with slam shut depending on the wind direction. However ,when windows are left open wide, the doors do not slam shut.
It was dark Kate didn't see Maddie because it was dark and she didn't see the twins from the doorway as she was too far away and it was DARK-unless someone can cite where the light was coming from....I do not believe Gerry saw Maddie either on his visit because it was too dark.
That would depend on how close she was. In her demonstration of the event she seems rather close and I have wondered about the draught too.
You describe an exact situation in the side entrance of my home. If doors are open and it is windy one door with slam shut depending on the wind direction. However ,when windows are left open wide, the doors do not slam shut.
It was dark Kate didn't see Maddie because it was dark and she didn't see the twins from the doorway as she was too far away and it was DARK-unless someone can cite where the light was coming from....I do not believe Gerry saw Maddie either on his visit because it was too dark.
Kate pulled it and the window took over when the door was just agar.
Yes that was my point MTI
A window open is different to a door - so how was it possible for that door to slam shut
I Don't think gmccann saw maddie either - to coincidental he had his proud father moment in the dark.
Kate pulled it and the window took over when the door was just agar.
Why would Kate embellish what happened? She didn't have to justify in any way the fact of discovering one of the children was missing. She only had to say something along the lines of: ... "I entered the apartment via the patio door, when I checked the children in their beds, I noticed the window was open etc etc etc ..."
She is not a stupid woman who would take the risk of over egging the pudding. Had there been any intentional subterfuge ... why didn't someone actually 'jemmy' the shutter?
In my opinion, Kate described exactly what she saw ... why on earth wouldn't she?
Here are the problems I have with that.1: Kate never went out to check the shutter, she automatically said it was jimmied (American spelling)
1: Kate never went out to check the shutter, she automatically said it was jimmied (American spelling)
2: Given the time frames, the person jimmying the shutter would have been in full view of everyone passing by.
3: The police looked at the shutter and said it had not been jimmied.
4: The shutter was not fully up, being halfway down it would have prevented a man entering and exiting said window.
5: They put the shutter in its position.
6: If there had not been intentional subterfuge, she wouldn't have not responded to police questioning.
And yes, a child is presumably missing, she would have to justify everything she claimed. And they made it an international case in the media and milked the media for a long time, therefore they opened themselves to make account for every single statement they make.
Now ask yourself, would you milk the media for so long to get attention and money, all the time still working and doing things without actually spending your money on searching yourself? To simply pay private detectives is not you yourself searching.
The media was a cash cow for the McCanns, so yes, they have to account for every word, every detail, every statement.
But also this, instead of calling the police right away, why did they wait for another half hour and it was the employees who called the police?
Who was it who told the police Maddie had been in that room sleeping? Kate and Gerry. We see the bed obviously was not slept in. Matt never witnessed Maddie or the twins.
And another thing, since Jane said she saw a man carrying a child at 9:15...how does a kidnapper walk away with some man's kid when the father is standing right there in open view? Jane casually mentioned it later.
If that was the kidnapper, don't you think he would have been a little more anxious considering the father had just been there at 9, and stayed on the sidewalk until after 9:15? Kidnappers tend to case places, so to do it where he knew the father was at....incredible IMO.
And Matt went to check a full 15 minutes AFTER Jane, which means Matt never witnessed anything if what Jane claimed was true.
I would like to see how much Kmoore1967 has actually researched themself rather that just cut and pasting from other sites. You've asked for cites, it will be interesting to see if there is a response.
Is cut & paste a crime now ?
That could cramp some styles...
Indeed it could, though it'll likely save some bandwidth ?{)(**If you run out of bandwidth use smoke signals instead.
Thank you for your patience in waiting for me to come to answer as I had things to do.
OK, I go with the original interviews.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CASE_FILES_INDEX.htm
Michelle Thompson
"Kate continued that when she entered the apartment via the patio doors, a breeze hit her in the face as if a door or window was open. When she entered the children's room, the window was open, the blind had been forced and Madeleine had disappeared."
Leicestershire Police Squad
Witness Testimony
CJ Act 1967, s.9; MC Act 1980, ss.5?(3) e 5B; Criminal Process 2005, Decision 27.1
Dianne Webster
- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.
949 to 954 Witness statement of Dianne Webster 2007.05.11
955-Consent for moth swab of Dianne Webster 2007.05.11
Jill Renwick on GMTV 4 May, 2007
Jill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV on 04 May: "She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
44 to 46 Witness statement of Claire Louise Fawkes (former Ocean Club holidaymaker) 2008.04.22)
It had a window which I think we never opened and a metal shutter that covered the entire window on the outside, but which was controlled from the inside of the bedroom either electronically or by a belt that was pulled. It was nearly always closed, but on occasions we would open it to have more light. As far as I can remember the shutter worked perfectly well. We never had a bad experience with the windows or doors.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Processo Vol 9 Pages 2307 to 2323
09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2307
Specialist Examination Report 200707060-CR/L
Requester: DIC PJ Portimao
Fax: 399 of 8 May 2007
Date: 4 May 2007
Photos 41 to 43: Details of the window of the bedroom from which the child disappeared where the non-existence of traces/clues of break-in/forced entry was verified.
In the photos taken by the police, they clearly show the shutter only halfway up and the windows closed. Dianne said SHE could not open it and SHE did not mention Gerry with her.
My statement of spelling was not to be taken as an insult, it was merely to demonstrate that as an American I spell it in American Standard English. I hope that I do not have to apologize for that.
Now, on to the money...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5932075/madeleine-mccann-maddie-cash-decision-dad-michael-whinham-unfair/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/26/madeleinemccann-probe-set-continue-government-grants-extra-funds/
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/madeleine-mccanns-parents-have-13-million-left-to-fund-search-for-missing-daughter-as-official-police-hunt-faces-the-axe/news-story/9610e6ac5ee64228675372b33c7f42d2
https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/maddie-mccann-disappearance-media-in-bidding-war-for-interview-with-kate-and-gerry-mccann/news-story/79dcce5a1e27173342ea49ab14f09d34
Now, did she respond to police questioning?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm#p10p2557
Processos Vol X Pages 2555- 2556
Statement of identity and residence for Kate Healy McCann
"Asked, on May 03, 2007, at 22:00, when she entered the apartment what she saw and did, where he looked, and what she touched [handled], she did not respond."
"If she looked inside the cupboard of the couple's bedroom, she said No in response. Shown two photographs of the cupboard of her bedroom, and asked for a description of the contents, she did not respond."
"Asked for what reason the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window, the photograph of which was shown to her, is moved [disordered], she did not respond. She did not respond to the question if someone [anyone] had passed [had gone; had walked] behind that sofa. "
"Asked how much time it took for the search that she made in the apartment after the detection of the disappearance of her daughter MADELEINE, she did not respond."
"Asked why she said from the outset that MADELEINE was kidnapped [abducted], she did not respond."
Do I need to post the rest of the rogatory report?
Oh, and Gerry mentioned the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the US and did not say it was global. https://www.icmec.org/global-missing-childrens-center/
I think I have posted enough sources to support my claim.
Thank you.
For future reference may I suggest when you make a statement which may require a cite it is a good idea to post the relevant cite in the post with the statement.
I’m not actually here to analyse cites.
They are requested information to ensure accuracy and to enable the reader to check sources.
I requested two cites from you
3: The police looked at the shutter and said it had not been jimmied.
When did they do and say that? Cite, please.
The media was a cash cow for the McCanns, so yes, they have to account for every word, every detail, every statement.
Please provide appropriate cites for 'cash cow'
The cite you have provided http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm covers the first request.
In my opinion the cites you have provided do not substantiate your claim that the media was a cash cow for the McCanns. I am not patronising you when I wonder if you are aware that the Government money being spent at the moment has nothing to do with the McCanns? They don’t see a penny of it. It is funding the search for a British citizen missing abroad, Madeleine McCann.
The “bidding war” mentioned in one of the cites is in my opinion a bit of a media invention …
Snip
A spokesman for Harpo Productions, which produces the Oprah Winfrey show in the US, confirmed they had approached the McCanns about an interview, but insisted they were not involved in a bidding war.
She said: "The Oprah Winfrey Show does not pay for news interviews."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576625/Madeleine-McCann-parents-in-1m-Oprah-bid.html
I was not in the least offended by your ‘American spelling’ and apologise if I gave that impression.
However in my opinion you have not substantiated that Kate claimed the window had been jemmied.
jemmy
verb
informal
past tense: jemmied; past participle: jemmied
1. force open (a window or door) with a jemmy.
"a burglar jemmied his patio doors"
forced
adjective
1. 1.
obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power.
"there was no sign of a forced entry"
The second hand accounts you cite all used ‘forced’ which in my opinion is exactly what Kate and Gerry thought had happened. They were unaware that the shutters could be raised from outside … which is why Gerry was checking that out and disturbed the original position when discovered.
Quote
6: If there had not been intentional subterfuge, she wouldn't have not responded to police questioning.
That is a totally erroneous statement. She answered ALL the police questions and volunteered information later leaked to the press. End Quote
The arguido interviews have nothing at all to do with intentional subterfuge particularly as when interviewed as an arguido, Gerry answered in full despite legal advice not to.
As an American you will appreciate her non-compliance if you consider the fifth amendment to your constitution.
Quote
The Fifth Amendment prohibits government officials from abusing their authority during legal proceedings. It also protects individuals from self-incrimination. When an individual chooses to plead the fifth, he/she cannot be required to answer any questions or provide any information that may incriminate him/her. End Quote
Kate used her right to remain silent only when constituted as an arguida and had in all probability already answered them previously particularly as she is quoted as saying ...
Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm?lsf Bearing in mind she had endured a eleven hour interrogation into the small hours preceding the arguida interview.
Snip
Portuguese police files released after the closure of the initial investigation reveal how Gerry and Kate McCann were forced to face a gruelling 11-hour interrogation as officers appeared to try and force a confession out of the heartbroken parents.
The grilling came despite advice from British forensics experts that the DNA evidence found behind the holiday apartment sofa and the McCanns' Renault Scenic hire care was 'inconclusive' and 'flawed', the Mirror reports.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-madelein-mccann-disappeared-12956690
[b]These are two huge posts which even if anyone can be bothered reading through them[/b] stand a high probability of not surviving when the threads are edited.
Which is as good a reason as any for adding links to your posts at the time thus avoiding addenda such as these which probably bore the pants off most, if they can even be bothered to read them.
Why would Kate embellish what happened? She didn't have to justify in any way the fact of discovering one of the children was missing. She only had to say something along the lines of: ... "I entered the apartment via the patio door, when I checked the children in their beds, I noticed the window was open etc etc etc ..."
She is not a stupid woman who would take the risk of over egging the pudding. Had there been any intentional subterfuge ... why didn't someone actually 'jemmy' the shutter?
In my opinion, Kate described exactly what she saw ... why on earth wouldn't she?
Well, if her daughter had left the apartment of her own accord -(perhaps to go and get her parents) and Kate noticed a gate or patio door open then she would have had to do a physical check- which they hadn't been doing they were only listening at the doors. (She has to justify a reason for doing a physical check)This would negate the 'woke and wandered' scenario. So, what I have come to believe is this huge dramatic event- cue dramatic music....the scene is set... like a silent movie...The door to the bedroom was more open than they had left it.
It certainly got the public behind them didn't it? an abduction- via a jemmied widow and them doctors and loving parents- sitting like in a garden like... well!
Oh, and not only that- they were left all alone ( 8)><()to go an look for their daughter who was abducted as the police were doing nothing! tsk.
Grrrrrreat PR. IMO
The door to the bedroom was more open than they had left it.
The door to the bedroom was more open than they had left it.So ? Gerry could have inadvertently left it like that .
Certainly bore me.
The door to the bedroom was more open than they had left it.
That is what they claim. I have suggested this was to give a reason for doing a physical check instead of just listening at the door.Your arguments appear faulty to me. Kate wasn't doing a physical check but just returned the door to the usual position - then it slammed. The slamming prompted the beginning of the physical check.
IF the door had moved why did GERRY not open the door and check his children? apparently by magic he saw his daughter, but Kate couldn't because it was too dark. oh.. hmmm
Was that by measurement, line of sight between two datum points or guesstimating do you believe?In Kate's estimation at the time IMO. What else could it have been?
Was that by measurement, line of sight between two datum points or guesstimating do you believe?
Your arguments appear faulty to me. Kate wasn't doing a physical check but just returned the door to the usual position - then it slammed. The slamming prompted the beginning of the physical check.
Gerry did go in and turned on the light as I have proved in a previous thread.
The door to the bedroom was more open than they had left it.
Your arguments appear faulty to me. Kate wasn't doing a physical check but just returned the door to the usual position - then it slammed. The slamming prompted the beginning of the physical check.You haven't proved Gerry turned on the light.
Gerry did go in and turned on the light as I have proved in a previous thread.
You haven't proved Gerry turned on the light.Do you remember the thread? I can never go back to thinking he never turned on the light.
Do you remember the thread? I can never go back to thinking he never turned on the light.I can remember the thread. It did NOT prove that Gerry turned the light on in his check on 3 May 2007.
I can remember the thread. It did NOT prove that Gerry turned the light on in his check on 3 May 2007.The room was very dark with the shutters down and there was no way Gerry could see what he did without switching on the light, and in a reconstruction done by themselves he shows how he did his check and he turned the light on as he entered and off again as he left.
Kate and Gerry as I understand left for the Tapas together, and they were aware of the position of the door when they left.
They being more than one,how did they know seeing as they never checked again as a couple.
Do you remember the thread? I can never go back to thinking he never turned on the light.
The room was very dark with the shutters down and there was no way Gerry could see what he did without switching on the light, and in a reconstruction done by themselves he shows how he did his check and he turned the light on as he entered and off again as he left.A TV documentary is not 3 May 2007. You have no proof.
That is proof to me.
Kate and Gerry as I understand left for the Tapas together, and they were aware of the position of the door when they left.
Why would Kate embellish what happened? She didn't have to justify in any way the fact of discovering one of the children was missing. She only had to say something along the lines of: ... "I entered the apartment via the patio door, when I checked the children in their beds, I noticed the window was open etc etc etc ..."
She is not a stupid woman who would take the risk of over egging the pudding. Had there been any intentional subterfuge ... why didn't someone actually 'jemmy' the shutter?
In my opinion, Kate described exactly what she saw ... why on earth wouldn't she?
Your first paragraph is exactly what Kate did say in her first statement. Problem was if the abductor had been seen by Tanner then the window must have been open on Matt’s check and he didn’t say it was. A solution had to be found and low and behold a week later on the timeline collaboration handed in to the PJ we have the first mention of whooshing curtains. No wonder Kate was too ‘ upset’ to be interviewed on that day and, in fact, never repeated her claimin any official statement.This post makes very little sense to me. Why would she need to invent whooshing curtains? Run that past us again...
This post makes very little sense to me. Why would she need to invent whooshing curtains? Run that past us again...
If Tanner’s sighting was the abductor then the window and shutters would have been open from about 9.20pm and Matt couldn’t have failed to see it on his 9.30pm check but he didn’t. How to explain this? Have the curtains covering the window to explain why Matt didn’t see an open window but the curtains ‘ whooshing’ so that Kate did. Obvious reallly.
Pity this glaring error wasn’t spotted before the first round of questioning.
One of the main reasons Tanner never saw an alleged abductor, nor did any one else that night imo.
If Tanner’s sighting was the abductor then the window and shutters would have been open from about 9.20pm and Matt couldn’t have failed to see it on his 9.30pm check but he didn’t. How to explain this? Have the curtains covering the window to explain why Matt didn’t see an open window but the curtains ‘ whooshing’ so that Kate did. Obvious reallly.Blimey that is so convoluted, do you really think Kate McCann spent a week dreaming that one up? There would have been no need to try and explain why Matt didn’t see an open window, in the same way it didn’t seem to matter that Gerry didn’t see Jane - it can all be explained by human fallibility.
Pity this glaring error wasn’t spotted before the first round of questioning.
One of the main reasons Tanner never saw an alleged abductor, nor did any one else that night imo.Let’s work this through. Jane actually DID see a man carrying a child fromthe direction of the apartment at 9.15 pm. So, what then happened next vis-a-vis hatching the convoluted plot, involving whooshing curtains?
Blimey that is so convoluted, do you really think Kate McCann spent a week dreaming that one up? There would have been no need to try and explain why Matt didn’t see an open window, in the same way it didn’t seem to matter that Gerry didn’t see Jane - it can all be explained by human fallibility.
Absolute nonsense.
What police force would believe that Matt looked into the children’s bedroom and didn’t see and feel the open window?
As to Gerry seeing Tanner he explained that by saying he was on the other side of the road.
You have such an incredible belief in the observational recall of folk on holiday.
Matt seems to have had no problem with his observational recall.
“That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine."
“That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction. ”
Given the door didn't slam on his vist,is it likely the window was open.
The timeline had moved forward via Redwood so Madeleine would still have been in the bedroom.
Let’s work this through. Jane actually DID see a man carrying a child fromthe direction of the apartment at 9.15 pm. So, what then happened next vis-a-vis hatching the convoluted plot, involving whooshing curtains?
Absolute nonsense.Benefit of the doubt. There is no law that says all people have perfect recall.
What police force would believe that Matt looked into the children’s bedroom and didn’t see and feel the open window?
As to Gerry seeing Tanner he explained that by saying he was on the other side of the road.
A TV documentary is not 3 May 2007. You have no proof.Well put it on the balance. I have more proof he did that you have that he didn't.
Matt seems to have had no problem with his observational recall.Yet he says he couldn’t determine whether the window or blinds were closed or opened, so that rather reinforces my point.
“That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine."
“That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside - making the point that both were turned in the same direction. ”
Given that Kate went to check at circa 10pm after two others had been in and ckecked, the position of the door is not in the least significant imo.Yes I agree but all that Kate is doing is to reset the door into the preferred position before returning to the Tapas.
OK let's do just that.I have no idea what you’re asking, sorry.
What do you consider the primary to be ?. Without that the "working through" you propose will go nowhere fast.
So your call on the primary event then the rest of us can pick it up.
If Tanner’s sighting was the abductor then the window and shutters would have been open from about 9.20pm and Matt couldn’t have failed to see it on his 9.30pm check but he didn’t. How to explain this? Have the curtains covering the window to explain why Matt didn’t see an open window but the curtains ‘ whooshing’ so that Kate did. Obvious reallly.Because the wardrobe juts out into the room Matt would be unable to see the curtains blowing IMO.
Pity this glaring error wasn’t spotted before the first round of questioning.
Benefit of the doubt. There is no law that says all people have perfect recall.
Well put it on the balance. I have more proof he did that you have that he didn't.No, you have no proof either way.
The timeline had moved forward via Redwood so Madeleine would still have been in the bedroom.May or may not have been in the bedroom. No proof either way.
This post makes very little sense to me. Why would she need to invent whooshing curtains? Run that past us again...
No, you have no proof either way.As you have already agreed he turned on the light in the reconstruction.
Why not, Kate McCann never mentioned the whooshing curtains on the 4th May 2007 or the slamming door, so it could be invented IMO.My question is why she would invent whoosing curtains. I have had the answer and I think it’s ridiculous.
Nop, no benefit of the doubt.
Matt seems to have perfect recall about even the most minute details, it would be ridiculous to believe that his memory let him down on only this most contentious of issues.
Well put it on the balance. I have more proof he did that you have that he didn't.
Given the door didn't slam on his vist,is it likely the window was open.
Can I ask that as you seem to be most assured, convinced, definite that some of the Tapas group are either lying or being deliberately evasive, have you passed these concerns to OG.
Or are you in the belief that they are already aware of these concerns?
If the window was open how did it get that way ? OG are almost certain it wasn’t the abductor.On the balance of evidence I believe they were opened in an attempted burglary. Madeleine awoke and the burglars stopped their activity and left the scene disturbed.
No you can’t ask.
My question is why she would invent whoosing curtains. I have had the answer and I think it’s ridiculous.
No you can’t ask.
On the balance of evidence I believe they were opened in an attempted burglary. Madeleine awoke and the burglars stopped their activity and left the scene disturbed.
On the balance of evidence I believe they were opened in an attempted burglary. Madeleine awoke and the burglars stopped their activity and left the scene disturbed.
Because the wardrobe juts out into the room Matt would be unable to see the curtains blowing IMO.Would Matt have closed the patio door behind him as Kate did? I don't think he would have because his intention was to be in and out to listen for the children.
I have no idea what you’re asking, sorry.
Would Matt have closed the patio door behind him as Kate did? I don't think he would have because his intention was to be in and out to listen for the children.
Therefore there is no comparison between his actions and Kate's when inside the apartment. The circumstances of their visits were entirely different. He was passive she was active.
I thought I read somewhere that Kate popped her head out of the window to see if Maddie was there, maybe it was Kate.That doesn't make any sense.
If his intention was to listen for the children wh6 go in at all when he had been listening at the window ? None of parents claim they specifically asked him to go inside.
Then did someone come along after the burglars and abduct Maddie?Madeleine wandered over to Tapas. Something happened once she was outside IMO.
This is getting very silly.
It's simple enough. What do you consider to be the primary event in the context of what you wanted to run through? Unless you can define that the argument debate investigation call it what you will is going nowhere.I think you’re just deflecting from what was a very simple question. Never mind.
The fact you profess to not know what I am talking about is hardly a definitive statement. Except by implication on your part you do not have the wherewithall to make a constructive comment on the matter.
I'll leave you to your customary ball bearing rolling.
Nop, no benefit of the doubt.Not according to the statement you posted.
Matt seems to have perfect recall about even the most minute details, it would be ridiculous to believe that his memory let him down on only this most contentious of issues.
Madeleine wandered over to Tapas. Something happened once she was outside IMO.
I think you’re just deflecting from what was a very simple question. Never mind.
OK try it this way.There are some people who DO believe there was a convoluted plot. My question was addressed to those people, not those who disagree with the (admittedly ludicrous) premise.
There was no convoluted plot and Jane Tanner's observation was the primary event based on available evidence.
Your move.
As you have already agreed he turned on the light in the reconstruction.
There are some people who DO believe there was a convoluted plot. My question was addressed to those people, not those who disagree with the (admittedly ludicrous) premise.The thingy with Jane Tanner stands whether there was a plot or no plot.
As you have already agreed he turned on the light in the reconstruction.It was a TV programme.
The thingy with Jane Tanner stands whether there was a plot or no plot.What thingy? As I said before I am interested in trying to understand the logic that drives people to conclude that numerous members of the Tapas group are involved in a highly convoluted plot. I don’t think for one minute you are one of those people but thanks for continuing to draw attention to my question which hitherto has been completely ignored by those to whom it was addressed.
There are those who subscribe to a phrase attributed to Lenin. I don't believe I am allowed to be more direct than that on here so you will have to look it up......it contains the word useful.
It was a TV programme.Was Amaral going to use the evidence from a reconstruction as proof?
If that is what you count as proof .....
What thingy? As I said before I am interested in trying to understand the logic that drives people to conclude that numerous members of the Tapas group are involved in a highly convoluted plot. I don’t think for one minute you are one of those people but thanks for continuing to draw attention to my question which hitherto has been completely ignored by those to whom it was addressed.Well I have no issue with involving the Tapas 7 as in my theory they were involved in playing a prank on Kate. But the prank is meant to be harmless bit of fun amongst friends, but it goes astray IMO.
It wasn’t a reconstruction it was a dramatic TV program.It wasn't the PJ reconstruction but it was a type of reconstruction for he sets out to demonstrate how his check was done.
Was Amaral going to use the evidence from a reconstruction as proof?Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Well I have no issue with involving the Tapas 7 as in my theory they were involved in playing a prank on Kate. But the prank is meant to be harmless bit of fun amongst friends, but it goes astray IMO.
It is inconceivable that anyone among the McCann friends holidaying with them would contemplate any such "prank".Look if Prince William played a prank on Prince Harry on his wedding day any body is capable of playing a prank from time to time. I don't see the reason you put up an objection.
Sorry, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.Well it was Amaral's successor in fact that tried to organise a re-enactment of the night. Don't you think that aspects of that re-enactment would be considered evidence?
Look if Prince William played a prank on Prince Harry on his wedding day any body is capable of playing a prank from time to time. I don't see the reason you put up an objection.
Look if Prince William played a prank on Prince Harry on his wedding day any body is capable of playing a prank from time to time. I don't see the reason you put up an objection.Prince William tied a ladder to Harry’s car, that’s a prank. Removing a sleeping child from her bed only for her to disappear forever can hardly be defined as a prank, not by any normal definition of the word.
Madeleine wandered over to Tapas. Something happened once she was outside IMO.
Well it was Amaral's successor in fact that tried to organise a re-enactment of the night. Don't you think that aspects of that re-enactment would be considered evidence?A non-occurring reconstitution has nothing to do with a TV programme.
A non-occurring reconstitution has nothing to do with a TV programme.I think Robbity’s point was a reconstitution would have proved nothing either.
A reconstruction may have enabled a better understanding of movement and interactions that night, rather than proving anything.
A reconstruction may have enabled a better understanding of movement and interactions that night, rather than proving anything.But whose version of events would they have followed?
Might have eliminated some things quicker though.What a great pity it is that the PJ didn't think to arrange one sooner?
But whose version of events would they have followed?
What a great pity it is that the PJ didn't think to arrange one sooner?
Indeed it is a great pity for all concerned.
A distinct possibility imo.So you think Madeleine could have tidied her bed before getting out through the described as heavy door ,down the steps opening and closing behind her ......thoughtful child ..... the gate ,despite her mother saying she would not have left the apt. .....this contradicting her telling Fiona that they’d left a door open so Madeleine could come to find them if she awoke distressed again ?
So you think Madeleine could have tidied her bed before getting out through the described as heavy door ,down the steps opening and closing behind her ......thoughtful child ..... the gate ,despite her mother saying she would not have left the apt. .....this contradicting her telling Fiona that they’d left a door open so Madeleine could come to find them if she awoke distressed again ?
Prince William tied a ladder to Harry’s car, that’s a prank. Removing a sleeping child from her bed only for her to disappear forever can hardly be defined as a prank, not by any normal definition of the word.I have not determined the nature of the prank yet both you and Brietta seem to suggest it involved removing a sleeping child. I have not said anything like that.
That would depend on who participated. As a last resort, the early statements of the group would have to do.But I thought they all differed wildly, so which one to go with?
I have not determined the nature of the prank yet both you and Brietta seem to suggest it involved removing a sleeping child. I have not said anything like that.Perhaps you could elucidate on the nature of the so-called prank then. Give us a for instance.
"Prince William tied a ladder to Harry’s car, that’s a prank" but if that ladder had killed someone as Harry and Meghan drove away would it still be a prank?
I think Robbity’s point was a reconstitution would have proved nothing either.But whatever mistakes were noted would be used against them never the less.
So you think Madeleine could have tidied her bed before getting out through the described as heavy door ,down the steps opening and closing behind her ......thoughtful child ..... the gate ,despite her mother saying she would not have left the apt. .....this contradicting her telling Fiona that they’d left a door open so Madeleine could come to find them if she awoke distressed again ?In my theory Madeleine left via the front door which appears easy to open, and no gates to contend with.
But I thought they all differed wildly, so which one to go with?
Perhaps you could elucidate on the nature of the so-called prank then. Give us a for instance.Put it this way I think it had something to do with the child being carried by Totman. (And I'm not saying that child was Madeleine, for she left by the front door IMO.)
That's why it would have been better if the group had been there, as they would have been able to correct anomalies in statements, or alternatively concede particular errors.Yes, it is frankly. Experimced policemen would know that in an incident with numerous witness statements there are bound to be differing accounts. Let’s face it they were ‘t really “wildly different” were they, just somewhat contradictory mainly on timings. What would be far more suspicious IMO is if all the Tapas group gave identical statements with identical timings.
If statements are so wildly different, is it any surprise that police came to certain conclusions ?
Yes, it is frankly. Experimced policemen would know that in an incident with numerous witness statements there are bound to be differing accounts. Let’s face it they were ‘t really “wildly different” were they, just somewhat contradictory mainly on timings. What would be far more suspicious IMO is if all the Tapas group gave identical statements with identical timings.Even the versions written on the sticker book covers varied from what was told in the statements so we end up with two extra versions as well.
Yes, it is frankly. Experimced policemen would know that in an incident with numerous witness statements there are bound to be differing accounts. Let’s face it they were ‘t really “wildly different” were they, just somewhat contradictory mainly on timings. What would be far more suspicious IMO is if all the Tapas group gave identical statements with identical timings.
Put it this way I think it had something to do with the child being carried by Totman. (And I'm not saying that child was Madeleine, for she left by the front door IMO.)So Totman is part of the prank is he? The mind boggles.
Someone had to carry the ladder to the reception that was tied to Harry's car. I don't think William went and fetched it IMO. There would be helpers.
I was merely quoting you, as it was you who said they were wildly different. ?{)(**I wasn’t being entirely serious, merely repeating an oft heard but not really substantiated claim.
What thingy? As I said before I am interested in trying to understand the logic that drives people to conclude that numerous members of the Tapas group are involved in a highly convoluted plot. I don’t think for one minute you are one of those people but thanks for continuing to draw attention to my question which hitherto has been completely ignored by those to whom it was addressed.
That doesn't make any sense.
Do you have any valid reason to doubt his sworn statement?
For that matter do you have any valid reason for doubting what Kate is on record as saying?
Apart from your belief?
Jane Tanner's observation of a man carrying a child.An observation that has since proven to have actually occurred despite many years of sceptics scoffing at the very idea. What was your point again?
So Totman is part of the prank is he? The mind boggles.He could well be. He was going the wrong way if he was carrying his own daughter home and carrying a child across one's arms is a very unusual way to carry a child a long distance. I have not been convinced by what we've been told about that incident yet.
An observation that has since proven to have actually occurred despite many years of sceptics scoffing at the very idea. What was your point again?Do we all agree on the bolded bit now? Jane saw a man carrying a child around 9:15 - 15 minutes prior to Kate's planned check.
Do we all agree on the bolded bit now? Jane saw a man carrying a child around 9:15 - 15 minutes prior to Kate's planned check.I think GA might have struggled with that at the time of writing his book. So if one thing has virtually been proven was Jane was there to see Jez and Gerry and this other man.
I think GA might have struggled with that at the time of writing his book. So if one thing has virtually been proven was Jane was there to see Jez and Gerry and this other man.
Do both sides of this debate all agree on that?
Up until yesterday I was reserving judgement too, but now when I think Jane got the fact that the man she saw was carrying the child across his forearms and Crecheman was photographed carrying the child in the same manner, it becomes uncanny unless it was an actual observation on Jane's part.
When and if its presented to a court of law,until then I'll reserve judgement.
Do we all agree on the bolded bit now? Jane saw a man carrying a child around 9:15 - 15 minutes prior to Kate's planned check.
I think you are safe with... “Jane says she saw a man carrying a child...”I can see the benefit of that but the passing Jez and Gerry are part of the same time sequence supposedly.
I can see the benefit of that but the passing Jez and Gerry are part of the same time sequence supposedly.
We know what Jane and all the witnesses said but we are not in a position to say if what they said was true. That is a fact..... but we are not in a position to say if what they said was true or false. So it becomes a judgement. The fact that she hits two observations correctly suggests to me it is true.
I think you are safe with... “Jane says she saw a man carrying a child...”So you doubt Totman is telling the truth?
So you doubt Totman is telling the truth?
Did Totman say he saw Jane?What’s that got to do with the price of fish? Either he was there carrying a child or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t then he’s lying, if he was then either Jane saw him or she made it all up and by sheer and amazing coincidence she described a man who actually was there just as she described. Which do you think is most likely?
An observation that has since proven to have actually occurred despite many years of sceptics scoffing at the very idea. What was your point again?
Did you want to start the "investigation" with Jane Tanner's observation as the primary event?Sure, fill your boots.
What’s that got to do with the price of fish? Either he was there carrying a child or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t then he’s lying, if he was then either Jane saw him or she made it all up and by sheer and amazing coincidence she described a man who actually was there just as she described. Which do you think is most likely?I think you have expressed the situation it just as I feel ATM.
Sure, fill your boots.
I was offereing you the opportunity if you read my post properly.Well would you like to start a thread describing how your concept is going to work please?
I was offereing you the opportunity if you read my post properly.Stop playing games and refer to my earlier posts, you know perfectly well I am not interested in investigating Jane Tanner’s sighting, I’m interested in understanding more from those who believe she colluded with Gerry McCann and how they think that came about. Your attempts at turning the tables on me are doomed to fail so kindly desist.
Let’s work this through. Jane actually DID see a man carrying a child fromthe direction of the apartment at 9.15 pm. So, what then happened next vis-a-vis hatching the convoluted plot, involving whooshing curtains?My question again, addressed to those with anything to add to the discsussion.
My question again, addressed to those with anything to add to the discsussion.
Stop playing games and refer to my earlier posts, you know perfectly well I am not interested in investigating Jane Tanner’s sighting, I’m interested in understanding more from those who believe she colluded with Gerry McCann and how they think that came about. Your attempts at turning the tables on me are doomed to fail so kindly desist.
It could only be theoretical at best.
"Jane actually DID see a man carrying a child from the direction of the apartment at 9.15 pm. So, what then happened next vis-a-vis hatching the convoluted plot, involving whooshing curtains?"
In my theory Crecheman was taking that child to the McCann's apartment as part of a prank being played on Kate, but when Jane appeared on the scene it became impossible to walk down to the side gate without blowing the prank. Someone else had to do Kate's 9:30 check so they had extra time to set up the prank.
But no one budgeted on the burglars opening the shutters and that noise waking Madeleine so the whole prank turned to custard.
At 10:00 they think the scene is set but it has all gone wrong. Kate discovers the whooshing curtains. The guys don't know if the crime scene left by the burglars was part of the prank or not so the crime scene is not preserved.
That is how my theory worked.
Mark Rowley sums it up nicely: "However Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted"
The prank should not have resulted in Madeleine being lost, so they assume she was abducted.
Tanner didn't collude with Gerry McCann, Tanner saw TotMan carrying a small sleeping Child and TotMan verify's this.
Gerry McCann IMO didn't collude with any of the Tapas 7, but unfortunately for them all, they all became involved because they chose to invite the McCanns on their holiday.
The only difference between the Tapas 7 and the McCanns Is, The Tapas 7 don't know what happened to Maddie McCann but the McCanns know something that they are not willing to reveal.
Tanner didn't collude with Gerry McCann, Tanner saw TotMan carrying a small sleeping Child and TotMan verify's this.So in your view are the Tapas 7 accounts of that evening completely truthful? Because we do have some contributors to this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge.
Gerry McCann IMO didn't collude with any of the Tapas 7, but unfortunately for them all, they all became involved because they chose to invite the McCanns on their holiday.
The only difference between the Tapas 7 and the McCanns Is, The Tapas 7 don't know what happened to Maddie McCann but the McCanns know something that they are not willing to reveal.
1)Stop playing games and refer to my earlier posts, you know perfectly well I am not interested in investigating Jane Tanner’s sighting, 2)I’m interested in understanding more from those who believe she colluded with Gerry McCann and how they think that came about. 3)Your attempts at turning the tables on me are doomed to fail so kindly desist.
1) I am not playing games I am a member of this forum as much you squire. Show me in the rules where I need your approval to post anything.Re: point 2 - finally the penny drops.
2) Fair doos
3) That sounds a bit like Joseph Heller's comment about paranoia in Catch-22
So in your view are the Tapas 7 accounts of that evening completely truthful? Because we do have some contributors to this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge.
So in your view are the Tapas 7 accounts of that evening completely truthful? Because we do have some contributors to this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge.Could you list those three and what has been said about them?
I believe the Tapas 7 were completely truthful in their accounts for that evening apart from Matt's statement about seeing the Twins in the Children's bedroom that night.
Do you really think three of the Tapas 7 are involved, that's five out of the nine. Do you have three friends out of seven friends who would collude with you to cover up a Child going missing, possibly dead?
I'm beginning to think I live on another planet, planet custard maybe. (&^&Well can you explain why intelligent people like doctors didn't do more to the preserve the scene that Kate saw, well at least what she says she saw.
Tanner didn't collude with Gerry McCann, Tanner saw TotMan carrying a small sleeping Child and TotMan verify's this.We don't know what Totman says.
Gerry McCann IMO didn't collude with any of the Tapas 7, but unfortunately for them all, they all became involved because they chose to invite the McCanns on their holiday.
The only difference between the Tapas 7 and the McCanns Is, The Tapas 7 don't know what happened to Maddie McCann but the McCanns know something that they are not willing to reveal.
Did Totman say he saw Jane?Has anyone seen Totman's statement?
I believe the Tapas 7 were completely truthful in their accounts for that evening apart from Matt's statement about seeing the Twins in the Children's bedroom that night.No I definitely don’t but there are many people who think this is what happened in PdL including several people who post regularly on this forum.
Do you really think three of the Tapas 7 are involved, that's five out of the nine. Do you have three friends out of seven friends who would collude with you to cover up a Child going missing, possibly dead?
Could you list those three and what has been said about them?JT, DP and MO for starters - all accused (implicitly) of collusion, lying and worse. I’ll not go into details if you don’t mind.
JT, DP and MO for starters - all accused (implicitly) of collusion, lying and worse. I’ll not go into details if you don’t mind.
StrawmanWhy?
I believe the Tapas 7 were completely truthful in their accounts for that evening apart from Matt's statement about seeing the Twins in the Children's bedroom that night.
Do you really think three of the Tapas 7 are involved, that's five out of the nine. Do you have three friends out of seven friends who would collude with you to cover up a Child going missing, possibly dead?
Why?
You are arguing against your own conclusions drawn from the discrepancies in the statements.What are you on about? I’m not arguing anything, I was asked to list 3 individual Tapas member accused by some of collusion, and I gave a straight forward response to the question. How is that a strawman?
What are you on about? I’m not arguing anything, I was asked to list 3 individual Tapas member accused by some of collusion, and I gave a straight forward response to the question. How is that a strawman?
Please provide the cite for accused of collusion.Oh please. Just read back fgs, and kindly acknowledge you were wrong to accuse me of putting forward a strawman.
JT, DP and MO for starters - all accused (implicitly) of collusion, lying and worse. I’ll not go into details if you don’t mind.What I meant was that if you can say "because we do have some contributors to this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge", are these accusations still in the thread? If they were just list the post numbers or links to the posts so I know what you are claiming.
What I meant was that if you can say "because we do have some contributors to this thread who have at least 3 of them involved in serious subterfuge", are these accusations still in the thread? If they were just list the post numbers or links to the posts so I know what you are claiming.You know full well that explicit accusations of illegal conduct are forbidden on this forum, that is why I used the word implicit in my post. This entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday. Anyone claiming otherwise is being disingenous at best. IMO.
Oh please. Just read back fgs, and kindly acknowledge you were wrong to accuse me of putting forward a strawman.
Then it should be very easy for you to provide a cite.Why don’t we start with Robbityrob’s posts on this thread and we’ll go on from there shall we? He has proposed a prank that went wrong played by the Tapas 7, so immediately we have an accusation of lying and covering up. Next?
Why don’t we start with Robbityrob’s posts on this thread and we’ll go on from there shall we? He has proposed a prank that went wrong played by the Tapas 7, so immediately we have an accusation of lying and covering up. Next?
My bad, I hadn’t taken Robbity’s theories seriously.All the statements are taken in the situation of the people as being witnesses. I don't see signs of of lying and covering up.
Why don’t we start with Robbityrob’s posts on this thread and we’ll go on from there shall we? He has proposed a prank that went wrong played by the Tapas 7, so immediately we have an accusation of lying and covering up. Next?
My bad, I hadn’t taken Robbity’s theories seriously.He’s a moderator of this forum is ‘t he? Should we just ignore him and say his views don’t count? Do you need any more examples btw, and can you kindly withdraw your strawman comment thanks
All the statements are taken in the situation of the people as being witnesses. I don't see signs of of lying and covering up.If you believe the Tapas 7 engaged in a prank, then the fact that this has never been mentioned by any of them in their statements is lying and covering up, isn’t it?
Even though some situations are hard to accept like Jane passing both Gerry and Jez and neither seeing Jane. Was that partly "lying and covering up" or can it be explained in some other way?
So you took Robbies claim of a prank(1 person) and asserted that the whole forum is accusing the McCanns of a cover up? and of being disingenuous:Well if you "suggest she didn't see what she claimed to have seen" then you fall into the category of "entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday".
"quote from VS:This entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday. Anyone claiming otherwise is being disingenous at best. IMO."
So we can assume that you 1 have no argument to challenge part of a debate
2 You have lost any sense of any argument by making personal jibes , and insulting
the integrity of forum members.
Totally removed the debate from the thread title. What did Kate see? I suggest she didn't see what she claimed to have seen IMO.
If you believe the Tapas 7 engaged in a prank, then the fact that this has never been mentioned by any of them in their statements is lying and covering up, isn’t it?I certainly recall Dianne Webster's remarks about her ignoring what went on at first because she assumed they were playing their "silly games".
Well if you "suggest she didn't see what she claimed to have seen" then you fall into the category of "entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday".
Well if you "suggest she didn't see what she claimed to have seen" then you fall into the category of "entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday".
I certainly recall Dianne Webster's remarks about her ignoring what went on at first because she assumed they were playing their "silly games".Do we have another taker for the prank theory?
Silly games =pranks?
I certainly recall Dianne Webster's remarks about her ignoring what went on at first because she assumed they were playing their "silly games".
Silly games =pranks?
Do we have another taker for the prank theory?No definitely not !
Do we have another taker for the prank theory?No ,definitely not !
You know full well that explicit accusations of illegal conduct are forbidden on this forum, that is why I used the word implicit in my post. This entire forum is one giant implicit accusation directed not just at the McCanns but at many of their friends who were with them on holiday. Anyone claiming otherwise is being disingenous at best. IMO.
Not to mention the "barmy army" who see Sr Amaral as The Boogah Man, to be slagged off at every opportunity.IMO your observation that any supporter here believes that had Amaral not existed everything would have been rosy is somewhat offensive, considering this is a case involving a missing little girl, who we supporters believe was abducted and who I for one believe was also likely murdered shortly after - hardly paints a rosy AA Milne picture in my book.
Not that I object to the slagging you understand, heat and kitchens and all that though.... @)(++(*
What I find scarcely credible is the implied A.A Milneish subtitle of "In which we discover that if The Boogah Man Amaral had not existed everything in the world would have been rosy".
Hmmm.....
Please provide a reference to Dianne Webster using that phrase. She isn't quoted often so should be easy for you to find.I can’t find one ,maybe removed ? Mentioned in other forums discussing this case anyway.
Thank you
IMO your observation that any supporter here believes that had Amaral not existed everything would have been rosy is somewhat offensive, considering this is a case involving a missing little girl, who we supporters believe was abducted and who I for one believe was also likely murdered shortly after - hardly paints a rosy AA Milne picture in my book.
No not a pretty picture - but she was left for the taking wasn't she.No I don't believe she was left for the taking. I don't believe her parents felt there was a high probability that she would be abducted. And I don't believe you think that's what happened anyway, so I'm not sure why you're even suggesting it as a possibility.
IN that case imo - maddie was left to that fate.
No I don't believe she was left for the taking. I don't believe her parents felt there was a high probability that she would be abducted. And I don't believe you think that's what happened anyway, so I'm not sure why you're even suggesting it as a possibility.
I'm sure you can provide a cite where its been found that abduction is what happened, or should you include alleged abduction.There seem to be some serious problems with comprehension on the forum today and all this asking for cites for every single word written is getting out of hand IMO. Where in the post if mine that you quoted did I state it has been found that abduction is what happened? I’d be much obliged if you could point it out, or failing that acknowledge your mistake.
No I don't believe she was left for the taking. I don't believe her parents felt there was a high probability that she would be abducted. And I don't believe you think that's what happened anyway, so I'm not sure why you're even suggesting it as a possibility.
Oookay, well then if that’s the case then why did you suggest she was left for the taking, when you clearly believe she wasn’t taken? Do you not see a slight contradiction there?
I'm not - you are.
Abduction - of which there is zero evidence.
I do not fit into that category at all. I am stating my opinion based on the story which cannot be backed up. It is called challenging their version, nothing wrong with that.IMO The whole moving door story is just that... a story.8@??)(
8@??)(
IMO so was the shutters being open and the curtains whooshing and the door slamming, if we take all these things away, what do we have left?
Just a dark room.
I can’t find one ,maybe removed ? Mentioned in other forums discussing this case anyway.
8@??)(Can we have a cite for dark room please.
IMO so was the shutters being open and the curtains whooshing and the door slamming, if we take all these things away, what do we have left?
Just a dark room.
Can we have a cite for dark room please.
Gerry said so.Oh so you believe him about that do you?
Oh so you believe him about that do you?
Gerry said so.
Yes I do, that's why I started this thread.Presumably then you believe his statements to be a truthful account of events then?
10th May statement.
----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed.
Presumably then you believe his statements to be a truthful account of events then?
So if the room was dark, how did Gerry see Maddie sleeping in her bed just by sticking his head around the door?Perhaps the room wasn’t dark but you’ve just told us it was because Gerry said so. Oh what a conundrum.
Perhaps the room wasn’t dark but you’ve just told us it was because Gerry said so. Oh what a conundrum.
And an empty stage.
I some times wonder what the public reaction would have been if burglars had visited and all 3 children were gone.
Well if it wasn't dark then where was the light source coming from? Not from outside the window, not from the small table lamp in the lounge area, IMOIf there was any lights on outside and/or any light on inside there may well have been sufficient to make out sleeping forms in their bed / cots. I can make out shapes of objects in our bedroom at night with the lights off and the curtains closed (these are heavy dark blue velvet curtains) thanks to a street lamp down and across the road which sends some light through the sliver of a gap between the curtains. There's really no way of knowing one way or the other if it would be possible to make out sleeping forms of children in their beds in Apartment 5a without actually being there so IMO this discussion is pointless really, apart from it does serve as another opportunity for some people to imply that the McCanns are liars.
Or if Madeleine had swallowed some bleach and died, or the children had been killed in a fire etc, etc, etc. All more likely scenarios than abduction when leaving children alone.In either of those scenarios there would have been a brief flurry of Daily Mail style outrage and then the name McCann would have been forgotten by pretty much everyone by about June 2007.
If you believe the Tapas 7 engaged in a prank, then the fact that this has never been mentioned by any of them in their statements is lying and covering up, isn’t it?I know what you mean but in the system in Portugal, as I understand it, as a witness you don't have to mention something that would incriminate yourself. You need to be declared an arguido for those sorts of questions.
Who's decided that things need categorising.It was before my day.
Do we have another taker for the prank theory?Kate mentions something like pranks in her book.
I know what you mean but in the system in Portugal, as I understand it, as a witness you don't have to mention something that would incriminate yourself. You need to be declared an arguido for those sorts of questions.I think deliberately withholding vital evidence that would solve the mystery of a child's disappearance is surely a crime, even in Portugal?
I can’t find one ,maybe removed ? Mentioned in other forums discussing this case anyway.She may not have used the exact words you quoted but she came close to it. I recall (IIRC) the word was joke or game.
Can we have a cite for dark room please.Silvia Batista talks of the dark room.
So if the room was dark, how did Gerry see Maddie sleeping in her bed just by sticking his head around the door?He obviously turned the light on. Obvious solution IMO.
If there was any lights on outside and/or any light on inside there may well have been sufficient to make out sleeping forms in their bed / cots. I can make out shapes of objects in our bedroom at night with the lights off and the curtains closed (these are heavy dark blue velvet curtains) thanks to a street lamp down and across the road which sends some light through the sliver of a gap between the curtains. There's really no way of knowing one way or the other if it would be possible to make out sleeping forms of children in their beds in Apartment 5a without actually being there so IMO this discussion is pointless really, apart from it does serve as another opportunity for some people to imply that the McCanns are liars.
Silvia Batista talks of the dark room.She also mentions light coming in through holes in the blinds and the partially opened curtains, so...
Sleeping forms you say, but Gerry say'sThat is your belief and you are entitled to hold on to it. There is no evidence you are right of course.
I'd actually stuck my head around the door and I, I just lingered for a few seconds and thought how Beautiful she was erm and that's the last time I saw her.
IMO this is just another made up story.
She also mentions light coming in through holes in the blinds and the partially opened curtains, so...We have discussed this before - you only get that light through the blinds or shutters if they were not fully down.
He obviously turned the light on. Obvious solution IMO.
We have discussed this before - you only get that light through the blinds or shutters if they were not fully down.The blinds have holes in them whether they are partially or fully down don't they?
The blinds have holes in them whether they are partially or fully down don't they?There are photos of blinds down or partially down, there was a term called "slats" which is used. It is the slats that let the light through. Slats open when the blind is not fully closed
Silvia Batista who says the room was dark when she entered was also able to a) discern the relative postion of bed and cots, and b) ascertain that Madeleine was not in the wardrobe. How was she able to do so, in the dark? Hmmmm?The blind was partly up and the curtains were open at that stage.
And risk waking up three sleeping Children?His concern was for Madeleine. Not whether she was asleep but whether she was alive IMO.
The blind was partly up and the curtains were open at that stage.My point was more about the fact that she, like Gerry, described the room as "dark" and like Gerry she also claims to have been able to see things in this dark room. In any case you are wrong as she describes the blinds as "down".
When did the shutters become blinds?Since I started quoting from Silvia Batista’s statement:
There is a fundamental difference.
His concern was for Madeleine. Not whether she was asleep but whether she was alive IMO.
If you are worried about your child being alive or dead, or hurt in some way, you're not so concerned about whether they wake up. They'd fall straight back to sleep anyway.
Since I started quoting from Silvia Batista’s statement:
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
She arrived an hour after Maddie went missing, so things had changed IMOThat is completely beside the point I was making. The room she described as dark and yet was still able to see things in it.
That is completely beside the point I was making. The room she described as dark and yet was still able to see things in it.
Since I started quoting from Silvia Batista’s statement:
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
That is completely beside the point I was making. The room she described as dark and yet was still able to see things in it.
I would think by this point other lights would have been put on in the apartment, bringing light into the Children's bedroom. I can't imagine everyone looking for Maddie without any lights on.You can imagine what you like, the fact is Batista said the room was DARK and still managed to see enough to ascertain that Madeleine was not in the DARK cupboard.
FFS, I was quoting her verbatim and now I’m being slagged off for it. Does it REALLY matter, really?
Well she is mistaken if she thinks it is a blind so what else is she mistaken about?Everything probably. Perhaps a new thread to examine the inconsistencies in her statement is in order. Oh wait, no she’s not one of the Tapas group so little point.
Everything probably. Perhaps a new thread to examine the inconsistencies in her statement is in order. Oh wait, no she’s not one of the Tapas group so little point.
She has already been "done" with some haraz about conflict of interest. It's amazing the extent of reach of this cases pseudopodia.No idea what that all means but thanks for sharing.
My point was more about the fact that she, like Gerry, described the room as "dark" and like Gerry she also claims to have been able to see things in this dark room. In any case you are wrong as she describes the blinds as "down".There is down and right down.
When did the shutters become blinds?Ask the translators.
There is a fundamental difference.
In Gerry's statement on the 4th May he doesn't mention any concerns for Maddie, but on the 10th May he states he entered the Children's bedroom, nothing about switching lights on though.There is what is said and what is not said.
That is completely beside the point I was making. The room she described as dark and yet was still able to see things in it.Shutters letting light through and the curtains open. 2 things different from when Gerry visited.
There is down and right down.So because she didn’t say “right down” we can take “down” to mean only partly down, is that what you’re saying?
So because she didn’t say “right down” we can take “down” to mean only partly down, is that what you’re saying?
What a pity that their friends didn't look. They all ran from the Tapas then skidded to a halt and didn't go into the apartment, apart from the Paynes who saw....nothing.Firstly the room was dark (her words) so how was she able to determine the relative position of “blinds”, curtains, beds, secondly, she describes the curtains as “slightly opened”, which is IMO less than what we see in the photos, thirdly she says she checked the wardrobe (in the dark) - not sure how easy that would have been with the brown cot positioned where it is in the photo and fourthly, she did all this before the GNR arrived, so well in advance of these photos being taken. We can imagine this is what the room looked like when she arrived, but we cannot believe, accept or comfirm it. There is no way of knowing for certain is there?
I would imagine Silvia saw what the photos of 5A show;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_16.jpg)
Who shut the damn window?
kate ?? her prints were on the shutters/windows were they not??
Firstly the room was dark (her words) so how was she able to determine the relative position of “blinds”, curtains, beds, secondly, she describes the curtains as “slightly opened”, which is IMO less than what we see in the photos, thirdly she says she checked the wardrobe (in the dark) - not sure how easy that would have been with the brown cot positioned where it is in the photo and fourthly, she did all this before the GNR arrived, so well in advance of these photos being taken. We can imagine this is what the room looked like when she arrived, but we cannot believe, accept or comfirm it. There is no way of knowing for certain is there?
She entered the room after the GNR arrived;
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
She entered the room after the GNR arrived;Were those photos taken before or after she entered the room for the first time then?
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
Were those photos taken before or after she entered the room for the first time then?
Due to my research I am able to help you with your enquiry. (although you might have noticed that there were no sleeping children in the photos and they are unlikely to have been removed then brought back)Yes I had noticed that and thank you for verifying my own thoughts on the matter. So the photographs were taken some hours after Batista first entered the room and therefore cannot be said 100% represent precisely the state of the room when she entered it, though of course we can use the pictures to imagine what she may have seen.
First arrivals; GNR
Second arrivals; PJ.
Photographs; taken by PJ after clearing everyone out of the apartment.
So because she didn’t say “right down” we can take “down” to mean only partly down, is that what you’re saying?Or nearly all the way down. Yes. It is like an open door is it agar part open or all the way open.
What a pity that their friends didn't look. They all ran from the Tapas then skidded to a halt and didn't go into the apartment, apart from the Paynes who saw....nothing.They look down but not right down.
I would imagine Silvia saw what the photos of 5A show;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_16.jpg)
So Kate runs back to the Tapas and leaves the curtains blowing in the wind.