A question of common sense?

[John]

Admit?  Admit what John?

They would see the children by the light that entered the bedroom from the sitting room lamp.   Going from a well lit room to a darker place means that the eyes had to adjust and then in the darker room look carefully.

John, I dont think that there is any doubt that after a moments adjustment, they could see all three.



We never ever, except in emergency (vomitting etc), switched on the bedroom light.  Light from the landing was sufficient, but our eyes had to adjust.

AIMO

Impossible, the sitting room light did not cast sufficient light into the bedroom to see the twins let alone Madeleine whose bed was off to the side along a wall.  Could this be a significant ommission in their story?

[misty]

Impossible, the sitting room light did not cast sufficient light into the bedroom to see the twins let alone Madeleine whose bed was off to the side along a wall.  Could this be a significant ommission in their story?

So Kate didn't pull back the main curtains & look out the window, letting in the streetlight from the outside?

[slartibartfast]

AFAIK most parents don't even check on their children overnight unless they hear a noise, let alone keep turning on a light to check that the kids are exactly where they were left - or am I just a bad parent?

Do you think that happened in this case?

[G-Unit]

Once she found he window open she probably did turn on the light.

I've found the re-enactment video I was looking for. The door slams, then she opens it, but not wide enough to go in. Still, rather than wonder about the slamming door she peers through a rather small gap trying to see Madeleine. She glances in the direction of the twins, but if she had the door in the position she is holding it she would have probably been able to see only one cot, the one on the left. The film is cut there and the door is open wider when it resumes. It had to be, because she wouldn't have seen the blowing curtains otherwise. For some reason the blowing curtains add light to the room, because Kate can now see that Madeleine isn't there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

[Innominate]

Impossible, the sitting room light did not cast sufficient light into the bedroom to see the twins let alone Madeleine whose bed was off to the side along a wall.  Could this be a significant ommission in their story?

Could be.

They claim they looked under the beds - I'm not sure you could do that without the light being on.

Fiona Payne states:

Reply
  'No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.

So, if Kate turned it on, someone turned it off before the Police came.

[G-Unit]

Could be.

They claim they looked under the beds - I'm not sure you could do that without the light being on.

Fiona Payne states:

Reply
  'No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.

So, if Kate turned it on, someone turned it off before the Police came.

I think the beds were divans so there was no space underneath. Amaral makes that point in the latest video (26.11).

[Robittybob1]

Could be.

They claim they looked under the beds - I'm not sure you could do that without the light being on.

Fiona Payne states:

Reply
  'No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.

So, if Kate turned it on, someone turned it off before the Police came.

There are times when they all left the twins alone in their room.

[G-Unit]

I've found the re-enactment video I was looking for. The door slams, then she opens it, but not wide enough to go in. Still, rather than wonder about the slamming door she peers through a rather small gap trying to see Madeleine. She glances in the direction of the twins, but if she had the door in the position she is holding it she would have probably been able to see only one cot, the one on the left. The film is cut there and the door is open wider when it resumes. It had to be, because she wouldn't have seen the blowing curtains otherwise. For some reason the blowing curtains add light to the room, because Kate can now see that Madeleine isn't there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

We then have the Oprah interview. After the door slams Kate reopens it and peers in looking for Madeleine. It's too dark to see so in the end she just 'walked over' (16.43) and Madeleine wasn't there.

This time Kate leaves the children's bedroom to check the main bedroom to see if Madeleine's there. She isn't, so Kate returns to the children's room (without checking anywhere else) and now the curtains whoosh and she sees the open window and shutters and 'just knew' she had been taken.

Nevertheless she 'ran' to the window then checked the wardrobes (still in the dark?), Without checking any other rooms she then flew' back to the restaurant. Was she calling Madeleine's name? She doesn't tell us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNI5up44Nho

[Angelo222]

Open the door and go into the room. Turn the light on, wake them up and ask them difficult questions.

Go to the top of the class Robitty.  Nobody ever mentioned turning the light on in any of the the interviews which the parents have given.  Strange don't ya think when that should have been the first thing any concerned parent would have done in such an occasion.

[Angelo222]

Once she found he window open she probably did turn on the light.

So why omit to say so?   

[Angelo222]

I've found the re-enactment video I was looking for. The door slams, then she opens it, but not wide enough to go in. Still, rather than wonder about the slamming door she peers through a rather small gap trying to see Madeleine. She glances in the direction of the twins, but if she had the door in the position she is holding it she would have probably been able to see only one cot, the one on the left. The film is cut there and the door is open wider when it resumes. It had to be, because she wouldn't have seen the blowing curtains otherwise. For some reason the blowing curtains add light to the room, because Kate can now see that Madeleine isn't there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw

I wouldn't be guided by any reenactment for obvious reasons.  The original statements are what counts.

[Angelo222]

Could be.

They claim they looked under the beds - I'm not sure you could do that without the light being on.

Fiona Payne states:

Reply
  'No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.

So, if Kate turned it on, someone turned it off before the Police came.

And the beds cannot be looked under due to their design.

[G-Unit]

I wouldn't be guided by any reenactment for obvious reasons.  The original statements are what counts.

The problem being that Kate only made one brief statement on the subject. There's nothing there about peering, checking the main bedroom, slamming doors, whooshing curtains, going to the window or searching wardrobes. She does claim to have searched the whole apartment thoroughly, which didn't feature in her later pronouncements.

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,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

[Benice]

I think the beds were divans so there was no space underneath. Amaral makes that point in the latest video (26.11).

IIRC one of the first GNR officers to arrive also claimed he looked under the beds.

IMO it would be a natural thing to do - it's not always clear that a bed is a divan bed if bedclothing covers the sides and even if you did know then it's not unusual for people in a panic to double check or look in the most unlikeliest of places.   It's human nature IMO.

[stephen25000]

IIRC one of the first GNR officers to arrive also claimed he looked under the beds.

IMO it would be a natural thing to do - it's not always clear that a bed is a divan bed if bedclothing covers the sides and even if you did know then it's not unusual for people in a panic to double check or look in the most unlikeliest of places.   It's human nature IMO.

Yet they claimed abduction as they were searching  the apartment.

Now if she had been abducted, there was no point searching the apartment, was there.