The great difference between the truth and a lie

I've always wondered that, IF Tanner saw the abduction at 9.10pm....the abductor was gone by the time kate arrived so the window would already be open.

Now, if there was someone hiding behind the bedroom door as Gerry assumes, how did he enter the apartment?

So assuming there was someone...Gerry then use's the toilet and leaves without checking his suspicion that the position of the bedroom door was odd.

He then bumps into his friend while Tanner walks by unnoticed by both. She sees the alleged abductor?

She says nothing, carry's on to her front door passing what should have been a fully opened Bedroom window?

She never noticed it going to or from her flat?

Mathew Oldfield is next and he doesn't notice the open window, surely you would feel a draft with it being "FULLY" open?

Then Kate checks and firstly the door is in a strange position, then when she goes to open it, it slams shut "Whoosh!"

Why did it slam shut then? The abductor was long gone.....at around 9.15pm!

Surely the door would have slammed shut when Oldfield opened the patio doors at around 9.30pm?

It doesn't add up? You don't have to be a forensic scientist to find flaws in their version of events?

I think the wooshing and over-egged drama comes from too much Harry Pottering? IMHO!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

steevo1962 wrote:I've always wondered that, IF Tanner saw the abduction at 9.10pm....the abductor was gone by the time kate arrived so the window would already be open.

Now, if there was someone hiding behind the bedroom door as Gerry assumes, how did he enter the apartment?

So assuming there was someone...Gerry then use's the toilet and leaves without checking his suspicion that the position of the bedroom door was odd.

He then bumps into his friend while Tanner walks by unnoticed by both. She sees the alleged abductor?

She says nothing, carry's on to her front door passing what should have been a fully opened Bedroom window?

She never noticed it going to or from her flat?

Mathew Oldfield is next and he doesn't notice the open window, surely you would feel a draft with it being "FULLY" open?

Then Kate checks and firstly the door is in a strange position, then when she goes to open it, it slams shut "Whoosh!"

Why did it slam shut then? The abductor was long gone.....at around 9.15pm!

Surely the door would have slammed shut when Oldfield opened the patio doors at around 9.30pm?

It doesn't add up? You don't have to be a forensic scientist to find flaws in their version of events?

I think the wooshing and over-egged drama comes from too much Harry Pottering? IMHO!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

totally agree with you. The whole wooshin slam shut door story sounds not believeble. If the window was open for 45 minuts, I find it so hard to believe that it didn't slam shut before the moment when Kate is about to close the door. Its like shes trying to say that God gave her a sign to take a closer look by slamming the door in her face ? And if the door didnt slam she then wouldn't have looked into the room and discovered that Madeleine was gone ? It sounds like a fairytale to me.....

I would have expected Kate to comment ,[she states that she recalls every little detail] as she said more than once in her book that she had to wear or go fetch extra layers from 5a for the tapas meals....that 5a was rather on the cold side when she entered at 10 p m on that cool late Spring Portuguese evening.

Yep! And Oldfield at 9.30pm, if he actually did go in to check would have felt something wrong?

I'm sure that if you have a fully opened window and you opened the patio doors, the door would slam shut?

Ask any fireman about 'Backdraft'?

It's all very strange indeed....and I really hope that this new investigation is quietly putting a case together which will bring the perpetrator/s to justice!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

steevo1962 wrote:I'm sure that if you have a fully opened window and you opened the patio doors, the door would slam shut?

Correct. But it didn't. So the window could not have been open at that point.

Then that begs the question

If it wasn't opened by the abductor at around 9.10-9.15pm when Tanner claims to have seen him going away from the flat with a child in his arms....

WHO opened the window?

Oldfield?.....Kate?....we can only assume that the window was NEVER opened in the 1st place by any apparent abductor and the whole scenario was made up by Kate and co to make their story more credible and divert the PJ away from their initial thoughts on who was responsible?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Only Kate's prints are found on that window. She claimed to the PJ that she never even opened the shutter that week, she left the chlidren's bedroom in darkness.

If she never opened the shutter, how and when did she touch the inside of the window, taking into consideration it had only just been cleaned?

Correction !! It was not the PJ, it was in her book !!

“She had the bed nearest the door, leaving the one by the window empty. On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week”.

On the 28th, the shutter and curtain get's closed and is left that way all week.
On the 2nd, the cleaner cleans the window.

Stella wrote:Correction !! It was not the PJ, it was in her book !!

“She had the bed nearest the door, leaving the one by the window empty. On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week”.

On the 28th, the shutter and curtain get's closed and is left that way all week.
On the 2nd, the cleaner cleans the window.

I guess she claimed the fingerprints came due to her trying to raise the shutter after they noticed Madeleine was gone ? But where is then Gerrys fingerprints because ( stupid as he is) he did try to raise them and destroyed potensial evidence in doing so.(selfish?)
Was it the night 2-3 may she claims to have slept in same room as the kids? or the night 1-2 May ?
How do they get away with their story? Why are everyone who can so afraid of digging in to this case and charge them ? Why are they so protected ? Who is afraid to lose face ? There is so many why and so many obviouse in this case....

But I thought they claimed the abductor must have opened them and that is the reason for the "Whoooosh" comment as the curtains were flapping with the wind from the open window which must have had an open shutter to let the wind in?

I'm sitting at the moment with my kitchen and Bathroom window slightly open to air the house.

It always annoys me that the Bathroom door opens and shuts continously and I have to either shut the Bathroom window or put a wee plastic wedge under it to stop it banging back and forward!

Infact I'm going to do that just now because it's really annoying me!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Moa wrote:
I guess she claimed the fingerprints came due to her trying to raise the shutter after they noticed Madeleine was gone ?

No. She told the PJ she never touched that window. Goncalo Amaral has previously mentioned this.

steevo1962 wrote:But I thought they claimed the abductor must have opened them and that is the reason for the "Whoooosh" comment as the curtains were flapping with the wind from the open window which must have had an open shutter to let the wind in?

I'm sitting at the moment with my kitchen and Bathroom window slightly open to air the house.

It always annoys me that the Bathroom door opens and shuts continously and I have to either shut the Bathroom window or put a wee plastic wedge under it to stop it banging back and forward!

Infact I'm going to do that just now because it's really annoying me!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have a similar problem, I think most people do. If my back door is open, as soon as the front door is opened, the kitchen door closes quite violently with a loud bang. We have to wedge it open also, but sometimes it gets knocked and the poor dog has to get out of the way quick, or she gets slam dunked.

it is possible to slide the window open and closed with the shutter permanently closed, isn't it, as the shutter is outside the window, and this is how you would have air in but not sunlight? I thought Kates print was found on the inside of the window ?

According to this video from Panorama, the shutter was open which assumes that the window also was open to allow the 'Backdraft' to slam the door on Kate?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And in this one at 1.20min Kate demonstrates how high the shutters were pulled up.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

thanks but I think I didnt communicate myself clearly.......I know Kate maintained both shutter and window had been opened by a stranger. Aalong with many others I agree there is no evidence for that.
I was wondering if she did leave the shutters closed all week as she maintained...her print could have got on the inside of the window with the shutters closed as in the bedroom she would not need to disturb the shutters to close or open the window. Its just that her fingerprint was on the window not the shutter, I recall.I am just trying to work out what she actually touched in altering the scene to stage the abduction as is suspected. Were there any prints found on the shutters?

Details on the fingerprints:

From the glass located on the inside of childs window,
5 prints were recovered, 3 from the middle finger of LH, 2 from the index finger of LH, all belonging to Kate McCann.

This is consistent not with someone touching the window just once, but at least 3 times. It is also consistent with someone sliding a window open and stopping and starting again 3 times.


From outside of the external blinds, i.e., the shutter,
3 inadequate prints were found. (according to experts, they are in the opening position of someone standing inside)[/color]

Unusable probably due to the surface material, or the condition of the outside weathered surface.

Why would Kate deny touching that window, when it was such an innocent thing to do, under normal circumstances?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The RH window slides from right to left, which means anyone standing in front of it would use their left hand to slide the window open.

Stella wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The RH window slides from right to left, which means anyone standing in front of it would use their left hand to slide the window open.

According to Kate in the Australian interview this is how she found the window - it was pushed right back.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Which might account for needing to reposition the left middle and index finger, when trying to slide that window all the way back, whilst negotiating the bottom of the bed. Leaning over it, or kneeling on it.

I wasn't aware she denied touching the window, bizarre in a room where you might want what little air could get in due to shutters allegedly being permanently closed; the room would smell otherwise....overnight nappies plus used clothes etc.
I didnt know until I read her book that the adults bedroom had a problem with the shutters vey early on which needed a repair. And she said the "Gerry touch" had caused the problem. Impling he is clumsy or heavy-handed..I wonder if this was him trying to close them as the reason for the permanent closing in the kids room was to keep it cool. Makes sense to do the same in their own.
I thought it might have been fabricated, a device in the book to get the shutters into the reader's mind for what was to come, but a repair slip does exist in the files ...I would like to re-read it to see what the damage was, if caused by Gerry I wonder was the motive maybe testing these shutters anything to do with the alleged events of 3rd May? Ovely analytical and speculative of an innocent situation maybe, but given the massive importance of shutters in this saga I am quite interested in what was going on with the shutters in their room.

In my experience of the Med area , if shutters are closed, people tend to have the windows open, just a question of how much depending on the temperature. These shutters in their design and operation were security shutters by the looks of them, much more secure than the traditional ones which open outwards and shut with a latch on the inside.

what are the dimensions of the window? it does not look large enough for an adult to get in or out of, must be one of first things police tested.
Importantly, how could an abductor get around a dimly lit quite small room cluttered with furniture without falling?
Ideal scenario for a dozy child to have a fall though [ I know some are now disputing an accident or even this flat being the scene of the crime, my point is IF Maddie was left here it was certainly a dangerous situation]

russiandoll wrote:what are the dimensions of the window? it does not look large enough for an adult to get in or out of, must be one of first things police tested.
Importantly, how could an abductor get around a dimly lit quite small room cluttered with furniture without falling?
Ideal scenario for a dozy child to have a fall though [ I know some are now disputing an accident or even this flat being the scene of the crime, my point is IF Maddie was left here it was certainly a dangerous situation]

Watch "The Truth of The Lie" as it tests the window theory giving a conclusion to it's complications in the part of the alleged abduction.

Part Six explains and debunks the window theory. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I've never seen this one before and it's unusual that it only features Gerry (and thus is slightly more bearable) as Kate was still in Portugal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It includes the classic comment that it's hard to tell what's true and what's false in the press. I love the bit at the end about a possible future in child welfare issues!

Marian wrote:I've never seen this one before and it's unusual that it only features Gerry (and thus is slightly more bearable) as Kate was still in Portugal.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It includes the classic comment that it's hard to tell what's true and what's false in the press. I love the bit at the end about a possible future in child welfare issues!

Ty for an interresting link .