Theory #1

[Innominate]

I thought I would put a few theories, one at a time, when time permits, on the forum for discussion.

Theory Number 1 - the aborted burglary theory.

There were a number of reported break-ins in the lead up to the 3rd. It has been demonstrated that, providing the window has been left unlocked, the shutters can be raised from the outside using the protruding lugs. The window may be slid open and the shutters raised via the inner strap.

In this theory a burglary was commenced, and then aborted when MBM was disturbed, presumably by the noise.
MBM decided to tell her parents. She left by the front door which may be opened by the latch, given there is no evidence the door was deadlocked.

If the Fenn report is correct, then after that incident MBM may have been told to find her parents at the Tapas bar if she woke up again, however the parents have not confirmed whether this did happen and this embellishment is therefore speculation.

She left barefoot, which is confirmed by the presence of her shoes in the apartment. The bed was also fairly neat and tidy.

It is a requirement for tracker dogs to pick up a scent that either (1) the subject is in the area, (2) the subject came into direct skin-ground contact, or (3) vegetation is disturbed by footsteps.

In this case MBM was barefoot, so a trail would have been left.

The trail goes around the back of the blocks and terminates in the road. A route that MBM would have been familiar with.

At this point an event happened. MBM was either taken, or hit by a car. I favour the accident theory.

As far as timings are concerned the MBM probably left the apartment by 9:30, hence the open door that MO reported. It is unlikely that MO would have noticed the curtains or window, and it is not confirmed that the shutter had actually been raised by inner strap.

The Moyes were on their balcony from about 9:30 to 10pm and this also points to an earlier timeline.

The above is a theory, and there is not an attempt to rule out or in one particular theory.

All IMO.

223

[misty]

What reasons would there have been for a burglar to have aborted entry prior to raising the inner strap, given the haste needed to carry out his job? A disturbed but sleepy child often does not start crying instantly.

If Madeleine had been disturbed by the sound of someone at the window, why would she have fled into the darkness outside the front door? (presumably after having been unable to locate her parents in the apartment).

Your theory places more faith in the intelligence supplied by the S&R dogs than it does in that of the cadaver dog. Any particular reason?

[Innominate]

What reasons would there have been for a burglar to have aborted entry prior to raising the inner strap, given the haste needed to carry out his job? A disturbed but sleepy child often does not start crying instantly.

If Madeleine had been disturbed by the sound of someone at the window, why would she have fled into the darkness outside the front door? (presumably after having been unable to locate her parents in the apartment).

Your theory places more faith in the intelligence supplied by the S&R dogs than it does in that of the cadaver dog. Any particular reason?

The Grime dogs were not specifically tuned to a particular person. The tracker dogs were given a particular scent to track.

Given the operating parameters of the Grime dogs they would trigger on my landing - but, no one has died there AFAIK. There was the issue in the master bedroom where one dog triggered and the other did not, but the bed was not pushed over so a section of floor area was not searched - it will never be known whether this would have produced a different result.

Both sets of dogs could be wrong, but the impact of the scent dogs being wrong is to potentially lead to uncertainty about route and means of exit - these are not crucial details.

There would be uncertainty as to how far the entry progressed before the children sleeping in the room would have been noticed. But it is likely they would have been detected prior to entry - and the forensics do not show signs of entry.

It is impossible to tell what MBM would have done in these circumstances. Was she physically prevented from exiting the apartment? In my opinion the answer is no.

Did she exit the apartment? If she did not then this theory would obviously be incorrect, but there is no way of knowing - it is just a matter of competing opinions, with the tracker dogs, potentially, indicating the apartment was exited by the front door.

[misty]

The Grime dogs were not specifically tuned to a particular person. The tracker dogs were given a particular scent to track.

Given the operating parameters of the Grime dogs they would trigger on my landing - but, no one has died there AFAIK. There was the issue in the master bedroom where one dog triggered and the other did not, but the bed was not pushed over so a section of floor area was not searched - it will never be known whether this would have produced a different result.

Both sets of dogs could be wrong, but the impact of the scent dogs being wrong is to potentially lead to uncertainty about route and means of exit - these are not crucial details.

There would be uncertainty as to how far the entry progressed before the children sleeping in the room would have been noticed. But it is likely they would have been detected prior to entry - and the forensics do not show signs of entry.

It is impossible to tell what MBM would have done in these circumstances. Was she physically prevented from exiting the apartment? In my opinion the answer is no.

Did she exit the apartment? If she did not then this theory would obviously be incorrect, but there is no way of knowing - it is just a matter of competing opinions, with the tracker dogs, potentially, indicating the apartment was exited by the front door.

 I agree the cadaver dog & CSI dog are not person-specific. To give reasonable consideration to your theory, it must be assumed that the both the item given to the S&R dogs on 4/5 contained only Madeleine's  scent & the route the dogs followed was travelled by her after 9.10pm on May 3rd.

If the front door had not been double-locked (a major question mark there imo) then Madeleine could have exited that way, albeit straight into darkness & towards the source of the disturbance which woke her. From the image below, how many times are we aware of Madeleine using the route outlined? Once? Surely the more familiar route was across the car park & turn right onto Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva?

You said you favoured an accident in this theory. Where on the route would that have happened, iyo?


All comments my opinion only.

[Innominate]

 I agree the cadaver dog & CSI dog are not person-specific. To give reasonable consideration to your theory, it must be assumed that the both the item given to the S&R dogs on 4/5 contained only Madeleine's  scent & the route the dogs followed was travelled by her after 9.10pm on May 3rd.

If the front door had not been double-locked (a major question mark there imo) then Madeleine could have exited that way, albeit straight into darkness & towards the source of the disturbance which woke her. From the image below, how many times are we aware of Madeleine using the route outlined? Once? Surely the more familiar route was across the car park & turn right onto Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva?

You said you favoured an accident in this theory. Where on the route would that have happened, iyo?


All comments my opinion only.

I would expect that the parents would have provided a good source for the scent on the basis they would wish the exercise to produce a result, but there is an assumption that the scent source was provided in good faith.

The dogs could not discriminate date/time any scent was laid down. The requirement for bare feet, combined with the known fact that the shoes remained in the apartment, is a pointer that scent could have been laid down at the relevant time. It is not definitive, and it can never be definitive. IMO there is a tendency for parents to put shoes on their children when they leave at normal times. Therefore, there is a pointer, or more accurately a very real possibility that the dogs tracked MBM.

There were three potential exit routes from 5A:

1) Front Door

There is no reported evidence this door was deadlocked. This exit route ties up closest with the scent trail. If the door was confirmed to be deadlocked, and no other exits were available this theory would be disproved, but there are other exits available.

2) Patio Door

The door is accepted by all parties to have been unlocked. IMO MBM could physically open this door. The stair gate would provide an obstruction, but it is possible to climb over the gate. I think the stair gate provides more of an obstruction on any return journey, because of the location at the top of the stairs. If MBM exited via this route she may have found it harder to return.

3) The Window

MBM could open the curtains and window. But, I believe it is unlikely she could raise the shutters. A test of this would have been useful. There was a case in Egypt at another MW resort where a young child 'escaped' from an apartment, which was subjected to 'listening checks'. Presumably this apartment would have had shutters, which were opened by the young child. But, on balance, I believe this exit route to be improbable.

On balance I favour the front door for exit, but the patio door is a viable alternative.

I will provide some views on route and possible accident, or indeed possible abduction, later today.

All IMO. Also, this is not an attempt to discount other theories, such as abduction directly from the apartment.

[misty]

I would expect that the parents would have provided a good source for the scent on the basis they would wish the exercise to produce a result, but there is an assumption that the scent source was provided in good faith.

The dogs could not discriminate date/time any scent was laid down. The requirement for bare feet, combined with the known fact that the shoes remained in the apartment, is a pointer that scent could have been laid down at the relevant time. It is not definitive, and it can never be definitive. IMO there is a tendency for parents to put shoes on their children when they leave at normal times. Therefore, there is a pointer, or more accurately a very real possibility that the dogs tracked MBM.

There were three potential exit routes from 5A:

1) Front Door

There is no reported evidence this door was deadlocked. This exit route ties up closest with the scent trail. If the door was confirmed to be deadlocked, and no other exits were available this theory would be disproved, but there are other exits available.

2) Patio Door

The door is accepted by all parties to have been unlocked. IMO MBM could physically open this door. The stair gate would provide an obstruction, but it is possible to climb over the gate. I think the stair gate provides more of an obstruction on any return journey, because of the location at the top of the stairs. If MBM exited via this route she may have found it harder to return.

3) The Window

MBM could open the curtains and window. But, I believe it is unlikely she could raise the shutters. A test of this would have been useful. There was a case in Egypt at another MW resort where a young child 'escaped' from an apartment, which was subjected to 'listening checks'. Presumably this apartment would have had shutters, which were opened by the young child. But, on balance, I believe this exit route to be improbable.

On balance I favour the front door for exit, but the patio door is a viable alternative.

I will provide some views on route and possible accident, or indeed possible abduction, later today.

All IMO. Also, this is not an attempt to discount other theories, such as abduction directly from the apartment.

In Kate's book, she described the police asking for an item of Madeleine's as a control for the scent dogs. She offered them some clothing, which wasn't taken by the police & Madeleine's pink blanket, which was. However, the S&R dog handler Antonio Silva stated he used a Turkish towel. That casts extreme doubt on whose scent the dogs were tracking imo.

The S&R dogs were air-scenting as opposed to ground-trailing. How much of a difference would that have made in their ability to track, given that the scent trail was lost in an open space? (parking area behind Block 6).

For the purpose of your theory, I will ignore the patio door as an exit point on the basis the dogs apparently showed no interest in going through the rear gate.
Photos on Tripadvisor suggest shutters are not commonplace at MW resorts Egypt (Abu Soma & Dahab) so perhaps not a good comparison for ease of child exit.

[Brietta]

I would expect that the parents would have provided a good source for the scent on the basis they would wish the exercise to produce a result, but there is an assumption that the scent source was provided in good faith.

The dogs could not discriminate date/time any scent was laid down. The requirement for bare feet, combined with the known fact that the shoes remained in the apartment, is a pointer that scent could have been laid down at the relevant time. It is not definitive, and it can never be definitive. IMO there is a tendency for parents to put shoes on their children when they leave at normal times. Therefore, there is a pointer, or more accurately a very real possibility that the dogs tracked MBM.

There were three potential exit routes from 5A:

1) Front Door

There is no reported evidence this door was deadlocked. This exit route ties up closest with the scent trail. If the door was confirmed to be deadlocked, and no other exits were available this theory would be disproved, but there are other exits available.

Patio Door

The door is accepted by all parties to have been unlocked. IMO MBM could physically open this door. The stair gate would provide an obstruction, but it is possible to climb over the gate. I think the stair gate provides more of an obstruction on any return journey, because of the location at the top of the stairs. If MBM exited via this route she may have found it harder to return.

3) The Window

MBM could open the curtains and window. But, I believe it is unlikely she could raise the shutters. A test of this would have been useful. There was a case in Egypt at another MW resort where a young child 'escaped' from an apartment, which was subjected to 'listening checks'. Presumably this apartment would have had shutters, which were opened by the young child. But, on balance, I believe this exit route to be improbable.

On balance I favour the front door for exit, but the patio door is a viable alternative.

I will provide some views on route and possible accident, or indeed possible abduction, later today.

All IMO. Also, this is not an attempt to discount other theories, such as abduction directly from the apartment.

We haven't a clue whether or not the front door was deadlocked but surely the PJ did?  In my opinion it would have been elementary for the investigators to have asked the question, certainly it never occurred to Goncalo Amaral (no doubt we have all seen the video) that the door was anything other than locked, or he would have said so.
Snip
   ... The front door has become vulnerable. You don’t need to force it. You don’t need to pop the latch using a credit card, which Gonçalo Amaral showed could not be done at 5A

So you have an easy entry point that would not show up as a burglary. As long, that is, as you could get your hands on a key, whether one of the originals, or by getting a duplicate cut.

The question now becomes – who had access to the keys of 5A?
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/apartment-5a-front-door-key/

[Innominate]

We haven't a clue whether or not the front door was deadlocked but surely the PJ did?  In my opinion it would have been elementary for the investigators to have asked the question, certainly it never occurred to Goncalo Amaral (no doubt we have all seen the video) that the door was anything other than locked, or he would have said so.
Snip
   ... The front door has become vulnerable. You don’t need to force it. You don’t need to pop the latch using a credit card, which Gonçalo Amaral showed could not be done at 5A

So you have an easy entry point that would not show up as a burglary. As long, that is, as you could get your hands on a key, whether one of the originals, or by getting a duplicate cut.

The question now becomes – who had access to the keys of 5A?
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/apartment-5a-front-door-key/

I've rechecked the statement and found the following comment by GMcC relating to the Thursday night:

Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

I'm pretty sure the Amaral video shows that they considered the door to be unlocked, i.e. not deadlocked. The reason for this is that the forensic chap was testing whether you could use a card to slip the latch. I seem to remember he said you could not because there was protruding screw head in the way. This test would be pointless if the door was deadlocked.

It appears the evidence is that the door was not deadlocked.

But, if there is other contradicting evidence I am happy to be corrected.

[Robittybob1]

We haven't a clue whether or not the front door was deadlocked but surely the PJ did?  In my opinion it would have been elementary for the investigators to have asked the question, certainly it never occurred to Goncalo Amaral (no doubt we have all seen the video) that the door was anything other than locked, or he would have said so.
Snip
   ... The front door has become vulnerable. You don’t need to force it. You don’t need to pop the latch using a credit card, which Gonçalo Amaral showed could not be done at 5A

So you have an easy entry point that would not show up as a burglary. As long, that is, as you could get your hands on a key, whether one of the originals, or by getting a duplicate cut.

The question now becomes – who had access to the keys of 5A?
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/apartment-5a-front-door-key/

In the theory proposed by Innominate the front door is not used as an entry point, but is merely the exit point for Madeleine to leave by.  The McCanns make the point  the door is closed but not locked from the perspective of those on the inside, as they are planning to leave by the patio door.  From the perspective of a person on the outside the front door is locked, in the sense they would need a key to open it.

[Innominate]

In Kate's book, she described the police asking for an item of Madeleine's as a control for the scent dogs. She offered them some clothing, which wasn't taken by the police & Madeleine's pink blanket, which was. However, the S&R dog handler Antonio Silva stated he used a Turkish towel. That casts extreme doubt on whose scent the dogs were tracking imo.

The S&R dogs were air-scenting as opposed to ground-trailing. How much of a difference would that have made in their ability to track, given that the scent trail was lost in an open space? (parking area behind Block 6).

For the purpose of your theory, I will ignore the patio door as an exit point on the basis the dogs apparently showed no interest in going through the rear gate.
Photos on Tripadvisor suggest shutters are not commonplace at MW resorts Egypt (Abu Soma & Dahab) so perhaps not a good comparison for ease of child exit.

None of us can be certain, so obviously any theory is provisional and open to being disproved.

My view is ...

The handler statement confirms a Turkish towel, but he states it was purported to have been used by MBM. I do not agree there is 'extreme' doubt. IMO it is highly unlikely that an item was supplied for the purposes of tracking that had no connection to MBM; the parents would wish the exercise to be a success. IMO there is a very real and distinct possibility that the track is MBM, if not who were the dogs tracking?

In an urban environment the ground disturbances do not exist, so only air scenting would normally be viable, but in this case we have a situation where it is established fact that the shoes remained in the apartment. The route is not optimum to go to the Tapas Bar, but it is not an absurd route that is extremely unlikely. It also is not the likely route used by the parents day-to-day, which adds a little circumstantial weight to the possibility this was not a normal trip. A scientific study shows dogs can detect direction, and the direction is consistent with moving away from the apartment.

Because the exercise did not locate the child it is never going to be certain whether it was MBM, but I have seen no evidence that disproves that it was MBM, or casts significant doubt on the validity of the exercise. Unless the dogs find someone there is always going to be an element of uncertainty.

I believe it is important to keep theories as simple as possible, consistent with the known evidence, and to avoid introduced extraneous parties unless necessary. However, as an illustration, there is another possibility involving an intruder with the tracker dog evidence. That possibility is an intruder entered  the apartment and walked MBM out of the apartment bare footed. The trail ends, possibly, with MBM being carried. US statistics show it is extremely common in an abduction case for the child to be walked away, without a struggle or resistance, rather than a car.  It is an exposed route crossing the main road, but not so unlikely as to be impossible; there is no guarantee an intruder would have known the parents were at the Tapas Bar. In other words the tracker dog information is not necessary only explained by a voluntary exit from the apartment: until/unless the case is solved it will not be certain whether the tracker dog data is irrelevant.

All IMO.

[Brietta]

None of us can be certain, so obviously any theory is provisional and open to being disproved.

My view is ...

The handler statement confirms a Turkish towel, but he states it was purported to have been used by MBM. I do not agree there is 'extreme' doubt. IMO it is highly unlikely that an item was supplied for the purposes of tracking that had no connection to MBM; the parents would wish the exercise to be a success. IMO there is a very real and distinct possibility that the track is MBM, if not who were the dogs tracking?

In an urban environment the ground disturbances do not exist, so only air scenting would normally be viable, but in this case we have a situation where it is established fact that the shoes remained in the apartment. The route is not optimum to go to the Tapas Bar, but it is not an absurd route that is extremely unlikely. It also is not the likely route used by the parents day-to-day, which adds a little circumstantial weight to the possibility this was not a normal trip. A scientific study shows dogs can detect direction, and the direction is consistent with moving away from the apartment.

Because the exercise did not locate the child it is never going to be certain whether it was MBM, but I have seen no evidence that disproves that it was MBM, or casts significant doubt on the validity of the exercise. Unless the dogs find someone there is always going to be an element of uncertainty.

I believe it is important to keep theories as simple as possible, consistent with the known evidence, and to avoid introduced extraneous parties unless necessary. However, as an illustration, there is another possibility involving an intruder with the tracker dog evidence. That possibility is an intruder entered  the apartment and walked MBM out of the apartment bare footed. The trail ends, possibly, with MBM being carried. US statistics show it is extremely common in an abduction case for the child to be walked away, without a struggle or resistance, rather than a car.  It is an exposed route crossing the main road, but not so unlikely as to be impossible; there is no guarantee an intruder would have known the parents were at the Tapas Bar. In other words the tracker dog information is not necessary only explained by a voluntary exit from the apartment: until/unless the case is solved it will not be certain whether the tracker dog data is irrelevant.

All IMO.

CCTV footage showing the abduction of two-year-old James Bulger from a shopping mall in 1993 by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson


In my opinion Misty's (Innominate's) post is one of the most logical posts made on the forum to explain what may have caused the GNR dogs to behave as they did ~ particularly the last paragraph.
It takes no time at all to walk away with a child and there is no rhyme or reason as to motive.
Snip
This is every parent's worst nightmare.

'The worst thing was how quickly it happened. One second she was there and the next she was gone.

'She still has nightmares about it. She is only three and she still talks about it. She will be left with this memory forever.'

Detective Constable Brian Christie of Humberside Police' Public Protection Unit said: 'It is a very rare occurrence but the child appeared to have been targeted.

'It only took 15 seconds for her to be taken and shows how quickly it can happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002711/I-saw-image-James-Bulger-thought-worst-Mothers-horror-daughter-3-abducted-shopping-trip.html#ixzz5DsFfijCO

[Robittybob1]

CCTV footage showing the abduction of two-year-old James Bulger from a shopping mall in 1993 by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson


In my opinion Misty's post is one of the most logical posts made on the forum to explain what may have caused the GNR dogs to behave as they did ~ particularly the last paragraph.
It takes no time at all to walk away with a child and there is no rhyme or reason as to motive.
Snip
This is every parent's worst nightmare.

'The worst thing was how quickly it happened. One second she was there and the next she was gone.

'She still has nightmares about it. She is only three and she still talks about it. She will be left with this memory forever.'

Detective Constable Brian Christie of Humberside Police' Public Protection Unit said: 'It is a very rare occurrence but the child appeared to have been targeted.

'It only took 15 seconds for her to be taken and shows how quickly it can happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002711/I-saw-image-James-Bulger-thought-worst-Mothers-horror-daughter-3-abducted-shopping-trip.html#ixzz5DsFfijCO

So are you all in agreement that the front door was the point of exit (this theory).  Either walking alone or in the hand of an abductor, is that correct?

The tracking dogs using a towel as the scent source followed from the front door around the block and then toward the OC secondary reception for a starter. 

I personally would think that this is so unlikely an abductor would take a child toward the most likely place to run into one of the parents checking their kids.  I can't see an abductor taking MM in this direction myself.

[misty]

CCTV footage showing the abduction of two-year-old James Bulger from a shopping mall in 1993 by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson


In my opinion Misty's post is one of the most logical posts made on the forum to explain what may have caused the GNR dogs to behave as they did ~ particularly the last paragraph.
It takes no time at all to walk away with a child and there is no rhyme or reason as to motive.
Snip
This is every parent's worst nightmare.

'The worst thing was how quickly it happened. One second she was there and the next she was gone.

'She still has nightmares about it. She is only three and she still talks about it. She will be left with this memory forever.'

Detective Constable Brian Christie of Humberside Police' Public Protection Unit said: 'It is a very rare occurrence but the child appeared to have been targeted.

'It only took 15 seconds for her to be taken and shows how quickly it can happen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002711/I-saw-image-James-Bulger-thought-worst-Mothers-horror-daughter-3-abducted-shopping-trip.html#ixzz5DsFfijCO

Innominate's post, not mine, Brietta.

As this is a world away from Theory #1, an aborted burglary, it needs its own thread. Such a scenario does not encompass an open window/shutter, the use of only the front door or a random act involving the abduction of a child visible to an abductor at a random moment.

[misty]

None of us can be certain, so obviously any theory is provisional and open to being disproved.

My view is ...

The handler statement confirms a Turkish towel, but he states it was purported to have been used by MBM. I do not agree there is 'extreme' doubt. IMO it is highly unlikely that an item was supplied for the purposes of tracking that had no connection to MBM; the parents would wish the exercise to be a success. IMO there is a very real and distinct possibility that the track is MBM, if not who were the dogs tracking?

In an urban environment the ground disturbances do not exist, so only air scenting would normally be viable, but in this case we have a situation where it is established fact that the shoes remained in the apartment. The route is not optimum to go to the Tapas Bar, but it is not an absurd route that is extremely unlikely. It also is not the likely route used by the parents day-to-day, which adds a little circumstantial weight to the possibility this was not a normal trip. A scientific study shows dogs can detect direction, and the direction is consistent with moving away from the apartment.

Because the exercise did not locate the child it is never going to be certain whether it was MBM, but I have seen no evidence that disproves that it was MBM, or casts significant doubt on the validity of the exercise. Unless the dogs find someone there is always going to be an element of uncertainty.

I believe it is important to keep theories as simple as possible, consistent with the known evidence, and to avoid introduced extraneous parties unless necessary. However, as an illustration, there is another possibility involving an intruder with the tracker dog evidence. That possibility is an intruder entered  the apartment and walked MBM out of the apartment bare footed. The trail ends, possibly, with MBM being carried. US statistics show it is extremely common in an abduction case for the child to be walked away, without a struggle or resistance, rather than a car.  It is an exposed route crossing the main road, but not so unlikely as to be impossible; there is no guarantee an intruder would have known the parents were at the Tapas Bar. In other words the tracker dog information is not necessary only explained by a voluntary exit from the apartment: until/unless the case is solved it will not be certain whether the tracker dog data is irrelevant.

All IMO.

OK - I will assume that the Turkish towel given to the S&R dogs was actually the pink blanket. Please bear in mind that the parents were very late back from Portimao police station on the evening of 4/5 so would probably have had no control over the scenting item provided to the dogs or anything else removed from 5A.
In the absence of forensics indicating entry/exit via the window, are you working on the premise that Madeleine was lured to the front door & opened it herself? If the potential burglar had a key there would have been no need for disturbance at the window & he could let himself in. What would explain the sudden change of motive, with no forethought?

Then the "burglar" walked Madeleine around Block 5 & into the parking lot behind Block 6. The area is overlooked
by Block 6, the houses adjoining the car lot + the entrance to the Tapas Bar is right opposite. That's quite high risk. A getaway vehicle could be noticed. Balu & Berry couples were dining on balcony of G606.
Is it possible Madeleine was picked up at that point & carried into one of the private houses?

[Lace]

OK - I will assume that the Turkish towel given to the S&R dogs was actually the pink blanket. Please bear in mind that the parents were very late back from Portimao police station on the evening of 4/5 so would probably have had no control over the control item provided to the dogs or anything else removed from 5A.
In the absence of forensics indicating entry/exit via the window, are you working on the premise that Madeleine was lured to the front door & opened it herself? If the potential burglar had a key there would have been no need for disturbance at the window & he could let himself in. What would explain the sudden change of motive, with no forethought?

Then the "burglar" walked Madeleine around Block 5 & into the parking lot behind Block 6. The area is overlooked
by Block 6, the houses adjoining the car lot + the entrance to the Tapas Bar is right opposite. That's quite high risk. A getaway vehicle could be noticed. Balu & Berry couples were dining on balcony of G606.
Is it possible Madeleine was picked up at that point & carried into one of the private houses?

Didn't someone say they heard 'Madeleine'  being called?   Maybe the person was calling to Madeleine through the window for her to let him in through the front door IMO