What did Kate McCann really see in the Children's Bedroom

[Innominate]

Simples:
Newton's First Law of Motion
Principles of Moments
Pressure always creating air movement from high pressure areas to low pressure areas.

... and according to Wikipedia air has a density of 1.225 kg/m^3 at sea level and 15 degrees C.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

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.

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 

[Vertigo Swirl]

Simples:
Newton's First Law of Motion
Principles of Moments
Pressure always creating air movement from high pressure areas to low pressure areas.

I take it these laws and principles apply in PdL, to curtains and doors and similar? I even observed my curtains billowing!

[Robittybob1]

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.

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 

Completely unnecessary IMO.

[Robin Banks]

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.

Maybe the Children bedroom door did slam at one time, but not the time stated.  A sliding door would surely react differently to a normal door.  When I open a door I feel a back draft of air hitting my face, what would be the difference in opening a sliding door?   

IMO 

[Robin Banks]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

He was obviously mindful not to disturb a potential crime scene by contaminating the shutter or window.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

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?

[Robin Banks]

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?

 Gerry shut the shutter and opened the shutter way before Amy Tierney arrived on the scene, but it could also be the case that he opened the shutter and then closed the shutter, maybe that's why only Gerry and Kate are the only witnesses to the shutters being open.

[Alice Purjorick]

I take it these laws and principles apply in PdL, to curtains and doors and similar? I even observed my curtains billowing!

Yes but some would have us believe they do not. My favourite is the notion of delayed reaction to uncontrolled pressure release.
Did your curtains billow in or out? That's not a trick question it's just I recall when I was a kid and net curtains had just replaced the blackouts the nets mostly seemed to billow up over the gutters.
Granny of course knew how to use her sash windows to improve room ventilation without causing draughts.

[Alice Purjorick]

Completely unnecessary IMO.

OK so lets see your sums and sketches of what you think happens and why.
It's your show so knock it on the head one way or another.

[Brietta]

He was obviously mindful not to disturb a potential crime scene by contaminating the shutter or window.

Unidentified prints were recovered from the crime scene and some which were unusable for one reason or another.

Three of which are marks visible on the shutter.
Snip
Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

In relation to which I found one of the videos of the dusting for prints technique https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-gerry-and-kate-mccann-departing-the-news-footage/487715646 as posted by Robitty on another thread absolutely riveting. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9534.msg462530#msg462530 

Am I seeing it correctly?  In my opinion that when applying the dragon's blood to the outer shutter, the scientific officer's brush strokes are reminiscent of someone emulsioning a wall rather than the usual rotating brush finger and thumb technique one normally sees.

If the window had been slid open from outside any marks would have been on the outside glass.  Is there any indication the outside of the window was dusted?

[Robin Banks]

He was obviously mindful not to disturb a potential crime scene by contaminating the shutter or window.

Well he wasn't mindful was he, he changed the crime scene by opening and shutting the shutters.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?)