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

[barrier]

The door to the bedroom was more open than they had left it.

They being more than one,how did they know seeing as they never checked again as a couple.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

You haven't proved Gerry turned on the light.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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. 
That is proof to me.

[Robittybob1]

They being more than one,how did they know seeing as they never checked again as a couple.

Kate and Gerry as I understand left for the Tapas together, and they were aware of the position of the door when they left.

[pathfinder73]

Do you remember the thread? I can never go back to thinking he never turned on the light.

None of his statements say that he turned on the bedroom light. Only that a light was on in the lounge.

[ShiningInLuz]

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. 
That is proof to me.

A TV documentary is not 3 May 2007.  You have no proof.

[barrier]

Kate and Gerry as I understand left for the Tapas together, and they were aware of the position of the door when they left.

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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...

[faithlilly]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[faithlilly]

One of the main reasons Tanner never saw an alleged abductor, nor did any one else that night imo.

All that planning just for Redwood to drop a bomb in the middle.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

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.