The 'Slamming Door'

by rainbow-fairy 24.03.13 20:50

In all the houses, flats and caravans I have lived in, doors have only slammed under certain conditions.
Kate stated that she entered 5A on the night of May 3rd, through the patio door which she shut.

After entering the apartment and stating that she probably wouldn't have checked inside the children's bedroom had the door not 'suddenly slammed' as she went to return it to 'the position they'd left it in'. She THEN goes on to state she found the window and shutters open, cold, icy fear, no please no etc ad nauseum..... She even says she checked if the patio door WAS shut - it was.
No mention of any other window or external door open (as you would expect HAD they left the children alone in an unlocked apartment.

Herein lies my problem. In my experience, the above account is impossible. For an interior door to slam, afaik the following needs to apply:

1)An exterior door to be open

2)An interior door to be open. PLUS:

3)An interior window OR another exterior door to be open. $

In Kates 'account' only 2 of the 3 conditions apply. Therefore, however windy it was, the door should have slammed the moment Kate entered the patio, not a minute or so later?

Doesn't it require the suction of a through-draft to pull a door shut?

I am happy to be set straight on this if I am wrong, though I have NEVER known a door to slam in the circumstances so described?

by **PeterMac** 24.03.13 21:18

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Herein lies my problem. In my experience, the above account is impossible. For an interior door to slam, afaik the following needs to apply:
1)An exterior door to be open
2)An interior door to be open. PLUS:
3)An interior window OR another exterior door to be open. $
In Kates 'account' only 2 of the 3 conditions apply. Therefore, however windy it was, the door should have slammed the moment Kate entered the patio, not a minute or so later?

Of course it's impossible. This is only a "version of the truth".
And importantly it has NEVER been put in an official police statement.
It appeared a long time later, in 2009, and was then incorporated into the book.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 1:15 onwards
Book, p. 71 “Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite
wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. 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.

by Guest 24.03.13 21:29

A "draught" to slam shut an interior door needs, indeed, two open exterior windows or doors.
If it's only one open window, it needs a very strong wind to do the same.
I speak from experience. I have six groundfloor doors and 56 windows .... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Nina 24.03.13 22:13

Châtelaine wrote:A "draught" to slam shut an interior door needs, indeed, two open exterior windows or doors.
If it's only one open window, it needs a very strong wind to do the same.
I speak from experience. I have six groundfloor doors and 56 windows .... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

that is one hec of a lot of windows to clean, soz

by rainbow-fairy 24.03.13 22:21

Thank you both PeterMac and Chatelaine for your replies thumbsup

I thought I wasn't completely deluded on this! The last occasion we had a resounding 'slam' in the house was when I'd gone out of the back door, the kitchen door was open and eldest son had gone out the front door - he was quite shocked when I asked "What were you doing out the front" - his reply? "I wasn't" which was when I found the front door wide open (causing the kitchen door to almost come off its hinges!!!)

I've mentioned this before but never really had an answer so thought maybe it should have its own thread - if anyone has had a slamming door in the circumstances Kate described (in absence of a poltergeist winkwink

) I'd love to hear it...

This is part of the reason I am still here (as well as for Maddie, naturally) - the utter nonsense Team McCann peddle, fully expecting nobody to question the 'account of the truth' they are spouting that day!

by rainbow-fairy 24.03.13 22:30

Nina wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:A "draught" to slam shut an interior door needs, indeed, two open exterior windows or doors.
If it's only one open window, it needs a very strong wind to do the same.
I speak from experience. I have six groundfloor doors and 56 windows .... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

that is one hec of a lot of windows to clean,

I'm now envisaging muscles like Arnie Nina! big grin

I have 3 exterior doors and 12 windows - that's plenty enough for me!!!

by worriedmum 24.03.13 22:49

hope this isn't off topic, butI also wondered how the curtains could 'whoosh' when they are full length and from the PJ files appear to be tucked behind the bed and a chair?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by rainbow-fairy 24.03.13 23:27

worriedmum wrote:hope this isn't off topic, butI also wondered how the curtains could 'whoosh' when they are full length and from the PJ files appear to be tucked behind the bed and a chair?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not really OT at all worriedmum thumbsup

I for one though don't believe the curtains did ever 'whoosh' for two reasons:

1)The Police would photograph the scene exactly as they found it (and innocent parents believing their apt to be a crime scene wouldn't alter things would they?)

2)I don't believe the window was ever open to cause a draught in the first place. Had it have been, the bedroom door would have slammed immediately Kate opened the patio door (it didn't).

Just more McNonsense imo yes

by Guest 24.03.13 23:55

The door slamming shut and the curtains "wooshing" reminds me of dear old Maman, entering my office one day while I was playing the video with Kate enacting the "event". "Who's that?", she said. Her eyesight is very bad, so she could only hear it. I explained. "A very bad actress", was her comment. I couldn't resist to get the video of Gerry, playing up outside the Lisbon Court. "He sounds like an ill-tempered boy, who doesn't get things his way", she said. I have to add, that she doesn't understand English either ...

by rainbow-fairy 25.03.13 0:05

Châtelaine wrote:The door slamming shut and the curtains "wooshing" reminds me of dear old Maman, entering my office one day while I was playing the video with Kate enacting the "event". "Who's that?", she said. Her eyesight is very bad, so she could only hear it. I explained. "A very bad actress", was her comment. I couldn't resist to get the video of Gerry, playing up outside the Lisbon Court. "He sounds like an ill-tempered boy, who doesn't get things his way", she said. I have to add, that she doesn't understand English either ...

I'll bet you struggled to get one over on Maman, Chatelaine! big grin

A very perceptive sounding lady!

by **tigger** 25.03.13 6:27

This little performance of Kate is interesting for several reasons.

She obviously loves to relate it, for once she is word-perfect. Hands flying all over the place, steepled, weird patting motion to indicate the bed she couldn't see very well etc. Then the big 'whoosh!'. Re-living the moment, in fact 'THE dramatic moment' in which she plays the lead role.
It reminds me of nothing so much as a little girl play acting.

What I would like to know is who dreamt it up. Neither of them are creative thinkers, they would have to copy or it would have been 'written into' the documentary.
Was this vignette dreamt up by the same person who thought of Cuddlecat and the high ledge? All part of the same dramatic 'discovery'. Adding an elemental aspect to this story (an operatic thunderstorm would probably go too far) makes it very much like a film. Add the paedophiles present but not seen and you have the perfect ingredients for a film script.
Gosh, they were negotiating film rights as early as Dec/Jan 08. Perhaps it needed jazzing up a bit. The documentary viewing numbers might result in a better deal for the film rights.

As an aside - imo Kate is enjoying herself there, she is word perfect, repeats it in various interviews later complete with the gesture (those 'loose' hands as we call them here worry me a bit) she is the centre of attention here - playing the lead.

by **PeterMac** 25.03.13 7:41

Kate's claim that the door slammed, and when she went in the curtains “Whooshed” open.

p. 205 “We’d never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else.” (Madeleine, by Kate McCann)

“I did my check about ten o’clock and went in through the sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought, uh, all quiet. And to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but 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 then as I got to here, it suddenly . . . slammed, and as I opened it, it was then, that I just thought I’ll just look at the children.
I see Sean and Amelie in the cot . . . .
I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which is here, and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking is that, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding and I couldn't quite make her out, and it sounds really stupid now, but at the time I was just thinking I didn’t want to put the light on because I didn't want to wake them, and literally as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, [demonstrates with both forearms together] that were closed, “wheesh’ like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.
And cuddle cat was still there, and the pink blanket was still there. I knew straight away that, err, she’d been . . . taken, yer know.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
See 1:15 onwards

We notice a number of significant points in this interview.

We are told that the door was open “further than we had left it”, but on the video it is clear and demonstrated that this did not mean fully open.

We are told that the curtains were fully closed, and this is demonstrated on the video by the forearms being held vertically in front of the body and together

We are told that the curtains blew into the room.

* * *

There are problems with this version of events.
If the curtains had blown up in the manner described they would have fallen back onto the bed, and have been lying across the bedclothes and across the chair
The photos taken by the PJ show clearly that the curtains are hanging down, and held firmly, one trapped down the side of the bed against the wall, and the other behind the wicker chair. The folds in each curtain are clearly flattened against the wall by the furniture.
*
The bed is also unmade. It is alleged that Kate had slept in this bed the night before.

The photos show the windows closed. They are of the type that lock together automatically when closed, and require a finger inserted into the black mechanism in the centre to release the catch.

They also show the shutters in the almost closed position

And the photos also show the curtains half closed, the left curtain slightly more closed than the right one.

However,

From Kate’s police statement, dated 4th May we learn,

“At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately 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.”

Gerry’s statement of 4th May does contain hearsay evidence, but as husband and wife they have obviously spoken between themselves, and the statement can be taken at face value.

“At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.”

In Gerry’s 10th May statement we find
“The deponent ran into the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table. When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE’s bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cots. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the apartment.
Then he closed the shutters, 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. “

Kate made the first half of a statement on 6th September, but it was adjourned late at night, to be resumed the following day. It was at this point that the events of late evening of 3rd May were about to to be discussed.

The following day Kate immediately exercised her right to remain silent as arguida and said nothing more of evidential interest. The more detailed analysis of her story was therefore never undertaken.

So in the original statements the curtains were drawn back, or fully open.
in the police photos they are half drawn.
In the subsequent explanation they are fully closed

In addition the windows are sliding, so only one half can be open, that pane moving in front of the other. A gust of wind would therefore disturb only one curtain.

But now let us examine the story around the children’s bedroom door.

In her police statement of 4th May, which was then confirmed, albeit in hearsay form in both of Gerry’s statements, she says, explicitly, “. . .the children’s bedroom door was completely open”. The same form of words is used by Gerry. “the door was completely open”. and he clarifies that this is what he was told by Kate.

But months later the story of the slamming door, and the door left open a bit more than we had left it, is told to journalists as in the video [q.v.], and it is this version which appears in the book.

p. 71 “Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught.”

Leaving aside for a moment the clear indication in that passage, and in the video, [see transcript] that Kate had no intention of looking in at the children, this is clearly at odds with all the police statements so far given, which emphasise and repeat that the door was “completely open”

What are the possible ways of understanding this paradox ?

The first option is that Kate immediately started rearranging the room, but in this case did not make the bed, which was still unmade from the previous night.
It is of interest to note that she had not even pulled the bed straight when she got up, or when she made Madeleine's bed, which is neat and tidy in the photos, with the corner neatly turned down, giving at least the appearance that no one had slept in it.

But she must have tucked the curtains back down the crack between the bed and the wall, certainly having to move the bed out to do so, and made sure they were hanging properly, before pushing it back against the wall before the police arrived.

She must also have done this before returning to the Tapas bar to give the alert, as none of the friends mention any such activity.

Again she must also have partially closed the curtains, since both statements insist that the curtains were “open”, “drawn open” or “drawn back”. and in the photos they are not.

The second option is that the curtains did not "whoosh".
And if the curtains did not "Whoosh" then the door did not slam.

It is important to remember that it was not reported in either of Gerry’s statements, nor in Kate’s statement that the curtains blew open or that the door slammed. This detail was only reported by Kate to journalists several months later.

The weather that night was mild, with a light breeze,.
In Faro it was recorded as reaching only Force 3. At 10pm only 14.4kph. This is the bottom end of Force 3.

Beaufort Force 3 Gentle breeze 12–19 km/h (3–5 m/s)
Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended.

Might that be enough to slam a door ? Or to whoosh a curtain trapped behind a bed ?

Neither Kate nor Gerry mentions closing the window.
In her statement Kate does not mention Gerry’s closing and opening the shutters.

In view of the evidence of the above, one is surely entitled to question the “official account” or indeed any of them, in that they are not supported by any evidence.

On the contrary, what scant evidence there is supports an entirely different theory.

“We’d never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else

References
(First five may be found on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.
Processos Vol I, pages 34 - 41 Location: CID Portimão

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m.
Processos Vol I, pages 58-65 Location: CID Portimão

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.
Processos Vol I, pages 891-903 Location: CID Portimão

Witness Statement José María Batista Roque Date: 17 – 10 - 2007
Processos Volume XII Pages 3281 - 3284

REPORTAGEM FOTOGRAFICA do Nucleo de Policia Tecnica
Reg Fot. 292107, Fotos: 18, Especialista Adjunto: João Barreiras

Interview
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 1:15 onwards

Weather
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1

by rainbow-fairy 25.03.13 8:44

tigger wrote:This little performance of Kate is interesting for several reasons.

She obviously loves to relate it, for once she is word-perfect. Hands flying all over the place, steepled, weird patting motion to indicate the bed she couldn't see very well etc. Then the big 'whoosh!'. Re-living the moment, in fact 'THE dramatic moment' in which she plays the lead role.
It reminds me of nothing so much as a little girl play acting.

What I would like to know is who dreamt it up. Neither of them are creative thinkers, they would have to copy or it would have been 'written into' the documentary.
Was this vignette dreamt up by the same person who thought of Cuddlecat and the high ledge? All part of the same dramatic 'discovery'. Adding an elemental aspect to this story (an operatic thunderstorm would probably go too far) makes it very much like a film. Add the paedophiles present but not seen and you have the perfect ingredients for a film script.
Gosh, they were negotiating film rights as early as Dec/Jan 08. Perhaps it needed jazzing up a bit. The documentary viewing numbers might result in a better deal for the film rights.

As an aside - imo Kate is enjoying herself there, she is word perfect, repeats it in various interviews later complete with the gesture (those 'loose' hands as we call them here worry me a bit) she is the centre of attention here - playing the lead.

Sounds about right tigger - Just a shame they didn't have the scientific equivalent of a proofreader!
What gets me most though is it seems Kate knows (as she does a lot winkwink

) that what she is saying is impossible (stating that she even turned to check if she'd left the patio door opened - but she hadn't.) Then in her narrative 'she drops it and just moves on' big grin

ETA: Thank you PeterMac roses

, demonstrates the whole thing very neatly! thumbsup

by aiyoyo 25.03.13 10:52

PeterMac's pain taking research is exactly the sort that Op Grange needs to do, then inevitably you will see clearly there is no other conclusion than the conviction that the Mccanns lied about everything.

p. 205 “We’d never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else.” (Madeleine, by Kate McCann)

So,that's one hell of a statement to make. That by itself tells you Kate thought nothing about lying, it's become second skin to her.
No one, no matter how impeccable and how full of integrity, is beyond a few white lies.
Especially under the circumstances where they were out dining and socialising having left the children alone. In that sort of circumstances, where your action is clearly wrong, and harm has been done to your child, you would lie to excuse your behavior even if only white lies as in embellishing frequency of checks or something to justify your action.

For her to have stated so categorically "that she'd NEVER LIED" so explicitly in a bewk gives me goosebumps. It leaves you wondering since when she is conditioned to lying. Since pre or post this fatal incident.

by **PeterMac** 25.03.13 11:16

aiyoyo wrote:PeterMac's pains taking research is exactly the sort that Op Grange needs to do, . .

They don't need to. I've done it for them !

by aiyoyo 25.03.13 11:18

Examples of their white lies:
Gerry's injured archilles tendon;
stomach flu when they cancelled Huevla trip;
Gerry's "no comment" when asked whether he knows Murat from previously
?
?
?

Maybe others can also remember other white lies they fabricated to explain away a situation.
Its not only their evolving statements that are a compendium of lies. This couple just make up lies after lies to fit a situation regardless.

by Guest 25.03.13 11:21

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:PeterMac's pains taking research is exactly the sort that Op Grange needs to do, . .
They don't need to. I've done it for them !

by aiyoyo 25.03.13 11:21

PeterMac wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:PeterMac's pains taking research is exactly the sort that Op Grange needs to do, . .
They don't need to. I've done it for them !

Kudo to you. (can't find "hat off to you" emoticon)! This thumbsup

will do.

by Guest 25.03.13 11:22

aiyoyo wrote:Examples of their white lies:
Gerry's injured archilles tendon;
stomach flu when they cancelled Huevla trip;
Gerry's "no comment" when asked whether he knows Murat from previously
?
?
?

Maybe others can also remember other white lies they fabricated to explain away a situation.
Its not only their evolving statements that are a compendium of lies. This couple just make up lies after lies to fit a situation regardless.

You need to start a new thread with this post please as it has the potential to take this 'slamming door' subject massively off-topic!.... yes

by worriedmum 25.03.13 11:54

Kate tells us she listened, and wasn't going to make a visual check until she noticed the door was open more than she expected it to be. She says she didn't put the light on for fear of waking the children....................BUT

she tells us the door SLAMMED shut (and mimes her look of surprise at it does so) and the curtains whooshed (cold air in the room).............all IMO quite dramatically...

BUT implicit in her narrative is the fact that NO-ONE WOKE UP. She does not report even a sigh from her children who would have, I infer from her not intending to enter the room ,been disturbed by her entering the room to make a visual check, and if you look at the way she carefully starts to close the door, as if the merest squeak might disturb them-then says she didn't put the light on suggesting that they would possibly woken up if she switched the light on- but she doesn't remark on the fact they didn't stir at all. There's no sense of 'I can't believe that didn't wake them up'-she's already telling us she's looking at them from the doorway, still in the dark -again suggesting the reason is she doesn't want to wake them. But if you watch the video, she looks shocked at the force of the door slamming shut . ODD?

by **tigger** 25.03.13 12:24

worriedmum wrote:Kate tells us she listened, and wasn't going to make a visual check until she noticed the door was open more than she expected it to be. She says she didn't put the light on for fear of waking the children....................BUT

she tells us the door SLAMMED shut (and mimes her look of surprise at it does so) and the curtains whooshed (cold air in the room).............all IMO quite dramatically...

BUT implicit in her narrative is the fact that NO-ONE WOKE UP. She does not report even a sigh from her children who would have, I infer from her not intending to enter the room ,been disturbed by her entering the room to make a visual check, and if you look at the way she carefully starts to close the door, as if the merest squeak might disturb them-then says she didn't put the light on suggesting that they would possibly woken up if she switched the light on- but she doesn't remark on the fact they didn't stir at all. There's no sense of 'I can't believe that didn't wake them up'-she's already telling us she's looking at them from the doorway, still in the dark -again suggesting the reason is she doesn't want to wake them. But if you watch the video, she looks shocked at the force of the door slamming shut . ODD?

Looking at the clip - why didn't the twins wake up with the slamming of the door?
Why - finding the door further open would you decide not to look in? Why close the door and how strong must that draught have been as you were holding the door handle and when closing a door like that, your body exerts a resistance in order to close it softly.

Just seeing that clip again with the curtains blowing in a gale - it's all a tension building exercise as often seen in films.

by russiandoll 25.03.13 13:27

what would have happened probably, one or both twins would have responded to that loud a noise by a jerking movement in sleep........then either settled down again or woken up, more likely. There would I am sure have been a bodily response in sleep to that noise even without full waking, a movement Kate would have observed even in the semi-darkness.

Twins did not stir, because were not in 5a until they were moved centre stage imo, and were sedated to make sure they did not wake to a distressing level of commotion. Had they been taken to hospital as they should and would have been, had an abduction occurred with suspected sedation, suspected by A TRAINED ANAESTHETIST,THEIR MOTHER , it would have been rapidly established by an experienced accident and emergency doctor.
LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS ESTABLISHED RAPIDLY DURING ALL EMERGENCY ADMISSIONS, ON A REDUCING SCALE OF ALERTNESS, GOING FROM FULLY ALERT AND COOPERATIVE TO COMATOSE.

A doctor not asking or even demanding that her children were assessed for sedation? Under the circumstances described ? Not credible.

You might expect that she and Gerry would have wanted the twins checked for any sexual interference, given that they were telling people Maddie had been taken by a paedophile. I know they were doctors and could have checked themselves, but at no time has either said that was done, and there is no mention of them being checked by their doctor friends or a doctor called in by MW.

by aiyoyo 25.03.13 13:32

worriedmum wrote:Kate tells us she listened, and wasn't going to make a visual check until she noticed the door was open more than she expected it to be. She says she didn't put the light on for fear of waking the children....................BUT

she tells us the door SLAMMED shut (and mimes her look of surprise at it does so) and the curtains whooshed (cold air in the room).............all IMO quite dramatically...

BUT implicit in her narrative is the fact that NO-ONE WOKE UP. She does not report even a sigh from her children who would have, I infer from her not intending to enter the room ,been disturbed by her entering the room to make a visual check, and if you look at the way she carefully starts to close the door, as if the merest squeak might disturb them-then says she didn't put the light on suggesting that they would possibly woken up if she switched the light on- but she doesn't remark on the fact they didn't stir at all. There's no sense of 'I can't believe that didn't wake them up'-she's already telling us she's looking at them from the doorway, still in the dark -again suggesting the reason is she doesn't want to wake them. But if you watch the video, she looks shocked at the force of the door slamming shut . ODD?

Yeap, the door slammed but none of her children woke up. Yet, she was afraid switching the lights on might wake them up so she peeped into the dark...........
that woman should seriously listen to herself or at least practise it in front of the mirror before she shoot off her lies.

by Nina 25.03.13 13:50

worriedmum wrote:Kate tells us she listened, and wasn't going to make a visual check until she noticed the door was open more than she expected it to be. She says she didn't put the light on for fear of waking the children....................BUT

she tells us the door SLAMMED shut (and mimes her look of surprise at it does so) and the curtains whooshed (cold air in the room).............all IMO quite dramatically...

BUT implicit in her narrative is the fact that NO-ONE WOKE UP. She does not report even a sigh from her children who would have, I infer from her not intending to enter the room ,been disturbed by her entering the room to make a visual check, and if you look at the way she carefully starts to close the door, as if the merest squeak might disturb them-then says she didn't put the light on suggesting that they would possibly woken up if she switched the light on- but she doesn't remark on the fact they didn't stir at all. There's no sense of 'I can't believe that didn't wake them up'-she's already telling us she's looking at them from the doorway, still in the dark -again suggesting the reason is she doesn't want to wake them. But if you watch the video, she looks shocked at the force of the door slamming shut . ODD?

If the door slammed and then the curtains whooshed how did she see the whoosh as the door was shut. Also as she reopened the door the whooshed curtains would be sucked back into the window space wouldn't they, and this isn't mentioned. Not much good at explaining this but somewhere in this tale should have been the curtains being sucked back into the open window.
Hasten to add I don't believe a word of it, just making a point dance

by rainbow-fairy 25.03.13 14:13

Nina wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Kate tells us she listened, and wasn't going to make a visual check until she noticed the door was open more than she expected it to be. She says she didn't put the light on for fear of waking the children....................BUT

she tells us the door SLAMMED shut (and mimes her look of surprise at it does so) and the curtains whooshed (cold air in the room).............all IMO quite dramatically...

BUT implicit in her narrative is the fact that NO-ONE WOKE UP. She does not report even a sigh from her children who would have, I infer from her not intending to enter the room ,been disturbed by her entering the room to make a visual check, and if you look at the way she carefully starts to close the door, as if the merest squeak might disturb them-then says she didn't put the light on suggesting that they would possibly woken up if she switched the light on- but she doesn't remark on the fact they didn't stir at all. There's no sense of 'I can't believe that didn't wake them up'-she's already telling us she's looking at them from the doorway, still in the dark -again suggesting the reason is she doesn't want to wake them. But if you watch the video, she looks shocked at the force of the door slamming shut . ODD?

If the door slammed and then the curtains whooshed how did she see the whoosh as the door was shut. Also as she reopened the door the whooshed curtains would be sucked back into the window space wouldn't they, and this isn't mentioned. Not much good at explaining this but somewhere in this tale should have been the curtains being sucked back into the open window.
Hasten to add I don't believe a word of it, just making a point