A Tale of Whooshing Curtains

This needs no introduction..

PeterMac's free e-book

Chapter 3: Curtains, Door and Windows



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

In 2008 Kate McCann gave an interview in which she described graphically what happened when she entered the apartment for her check, and discovered Madeleine to be missing.

“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.” [1]

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 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 [2]



And the photos also show the curtains half closed, the left curtain slightly more closed than the right one. [3]



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.” [4]

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.” [5]

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. “ [6]

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.” [7]

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. [8]





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. [9]

Beaufort Force 3 Gentle breeze 12–19 km/h (3–5 m/s)
Leaves and small twigs constantly moving, light flags extended. [10]


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 seem unsupported by evidence.


References

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw&feature=player_embedded

See 1:15 onwards

2 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

3 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

4 Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 4th May 2007,
Processos Vol I, pages 58-65
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta4

5 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 4th May 2007,
Processos Vol I, pages 34 - 41
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta1

6 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 10th May 2007.
Processos Vol I, pages 891-903
http://mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta3

7 ‘”madeleine’”, Kate McCann, Random Press, 2011, at p. 71

8 http://mccannfiles.com/id155.html

9 http://www.wunderground.com

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale

Your article misses one very important point ; the reason why curtain "whoosh" and doors slam.  It is caused by differential air pressure, and this mainly occurs when there are two open orifices in a building with air being able to flow from one to the other. When the air pressure outside one opening (window or door), determined by the wind direction, is lower than the internal air, the internal air will rush out of that window, creating a lower pressure internally and sucking air in through the opposite/alternative opening. It is this sucking that causes doors to slam and curtains to whoosh inwardly.

Kate was very careful to describe how she ensured the patio door behind her was closed, presumably to justify her claim that the window was already open (that she didn't open it).  Her story would have been much more credible had she said she had left the patio open as it would have been this condition that allowed the differential pressure and facilitate the air rushing through the property from one side to the other. With the patio door closed, and therefore little or no through draft, then with just one open window the pressure would quickly equalise.  In these conditions doors rarely slam.

So, the most likely time that the bedroom door would have slammed would have been as she entered the property, having opened the patio, and not once she closed the patio and approached the bedroom door. This unnecessary embellishment is not only a concern in itself, but her lack of understanding of the science is a clear indication of lying.

Funny isn't it there was no mention of " slamming door and whooshing CLOSED curtains " in Kate's 4th May statement ? 

In fact at that point the curtains were OPEN ! 

The embellishments and " dramatic " performance makes the whole thing a pantomime

The whole thing is a pantomime - or some might say a bedroom farce .

Trying to analyze the case through the witness statements and rogatory interviews just takes you round and round in circles.  No doubt partly contrived and partly circumstantial - what a tragedy the PJ were forced to follow their lead.

It's a statement analyst's dream, you can read anything into it as you like .

If I go out the front door while my back door is still open one of the doors can slam if there's even a small gust of wind. There may be a delay due to wind but as soon as one door is shut no door will slam. Kate would have to have left the patio door open behind her for any door to slam. The window would have to be open. Neither seems to be the case here.

I don't think you should spend too long dissecting the story about the curtains and the slamming door and all the rest.
It simply did not happen, and is therefore totally irrelevant to the main issue of what happened to Madeleine, on or about Sunday or Monday 29th and 30th April.

What they did, or said they did, and what happened, or what they said happened, on the evening of 3/5/7 is interesting, but only to show the beginnings of the web of lies and deceit, which is added to by the rogatories and then by the book, all of which veer off in different directions.

The beginning and the end of a convoluting saga of windows, shutters and doors..

On the informal depositions they made, during the judiciary inspection made at the local, the information immediately induced the thesis of KIDNAPPING.

Simple things became disinformation: the question of the opened or closed window; the shutter up or down; the balcony door opened' the front door, locked or open.

Despite everything, until a certain time in the investigation the family sustained the thesis of kidnapping.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16264-the-report-of-tavares-de-almeida-10-sep-2007#401357

I still can't fully buy into her disappearing earlier in the week. The time line that night is not what they said. She raised the alarm before 10 imo. They got lucky. All the confusion you can't determine what's a red herring. A lot of crap could be explained then the actual facts would be left. I do believe GM was Smithman,  that rings true for me. All the whopping blunders they made,especially in earlier interviews, they as good as confessed. About time they came clean.

This is the Scene that Kate would have seen when she was allowed back in to collect their belongings.

After she had given her first Statement.
After the Forensic team had been in there.

The wind was obviously blowing in so hard, the chair in the corner flew away too?

Source:
https://www.flash.pt/celebridades/nacional/detalhe/inspetor-acredita-que-o-corpo-de-maddie-foi-congelado

Further Information on the Fingerprint Powder on the Inside of the Window has just Surfaced in a Statement from a PJ OFFICER.

The witness carried out finger print testing on the inside of the bedroom window, where the girl had been sleeping, leaving other examinations for the following day given that on that occasion these tests could not be carried out in the best technical conditions. For this reason, the apartments and the surrounding area were sealed off, watched over by the GNR officers who remained on site.

As far as he knows, after the first examination, other members from the finger print detection service and also officers from the LPC Crime Scene arrived at the scene.


Source: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_BARREIRAS.htm

So just to Clarify- the Inside was dusted for Prints that Night, and the Outside was done in the Morning.

Which still proves that the Curtains did not ‘Whoosh’ over the Bed until he arrived!

you know, it does not even matter, that part of the window, with that part of the curtains have never been able to get an exposure of the wild winds of parai da luz, that part of the window is just fixed. 

the big blowing curtains could only be possible, if both glass panes of the window could be open, and that was not so. there also was no draft diagonally. 

it does not matter how they ended up during the forensic investigation. and outside was meant very litteraly outside. 

inside you can use artificial light to catch fingerprints, outside you have often all kind of other light that makes that impossible. so you have to wait until the sun is up and gives enough straight and direct lightning. you must be able to turn your eyes in different corners, but you want a secure steady light with it, we call it mirroring. 

you can try it at home, get some very light film of oil or butter on your hand and print once inside, and once outside your window. and see what you can see. it works only if you can blind the window at the outside enough. but even without that you can see clearly your markings with just putting a light source behind you. 

walk to the outside and try the same. walk after it back to the inside of your kitchen, get a bucket of very hot water and some soap and clean the windows, but for the full experience you have to wait until the next day, and try both again. 

because the left glass pane was fixed, they just have used a trick to get the dragon blood powder there, we just would have uses a thin stick with a bit of infusion line, took a fresh pot of dragon blood powder, used a syringe and shake the pot fiercely, put the top of the syringe 30ml or 50 ml through the safety covering of the dragon blood powder pot, and you can easily get a bunch of it in the syringe and you use the syringe to get it in your line, and blowing it where you need the stuff can be a bit of a hazard, you prefer not having an eager co-worker who already started at the outside, because that bloody stuff is very hard to wash out of your hair.

but i have seen many solutions that got together with a little finking and what was around. as long as it takes less time to get it on the inside , than take the whole thing down it is oke. 

and they only had to do it at the half a meter from the windowsill. most humans would never get a hand higher up from the outside between shutter and glass panes.  

we tried it once with a vacuum cleaner, the one that not only could suck, but also could blow, well at least we know no one had tried to walk the ceiling too. but it is one of many reasons you go first for dna and other biological traces, before fingerprinting, that always was and is very messy. and that is the second reason why you do not really need to fully suit up. that stuff is usually already safe enough. you have to move often in a lot of quite awkward positions to get a good effect, and that is a great moment to put your own dna in. so the newer technique with much less powdery stuff and direct taking pictures and even direct foils are a great solution. 

the reason why the curtain was in that picture over the bed and bedding was most likely because the wanted to look at it for traces, and to keep it way out of the reach of the dragon blood powder. 

in 2007 the technique of being able to get dna from a fingerprints was not ready enough, and it is still a technique with a high error rate and not always needed. that was mostly the reason to say goodbye to a lot of powder types, that did not worked well together. most times it is done the same way as 100 years ago.