My points may be rational but so much of this case is irrational, from the circumstances surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance to many of the subsequent events. It is difficult not to over analyse when there are so many extraordinary factors to consider. However, it is safe to say Mrs Fenn’s phone data would have been quite high on the list of the Met’s to-do list, along with all the other data for periods before & after the disappearance.
I understand what you are saying about a local criminal & opportunity. In Sadie’s theory, there is a watcher & a getaway driver so both would have needed local knowledge about the McCanns’ & their friends’ routine, the OC complex & the quickest means of disappearance from the crime scene. IMO, trying to combine those 3 elements into a planned kidnapping following very recently acquired opportunistic knowledge would be incredibly difficult.
MO may well have thought that it could have been a kidnap/ransom situation but IMO such a target would not have been selected from a basic 2 bed holiday apartment & no prior information about the family’s financial affairs.
I keep going back to the questions “Who knew that the children were alone?” followed by “What was gained by an (alleged) abduction then making Madeleine disappear without trace?”
Re. the buckets & spade – I wondered if they had been blown around in the gusty wind that night.
Off topic – but I read somewhere else that the clothing Eddie alerted to at the gym was actually in the washing machine when the dog was deployed at the villa. Any thoughts on that?
I agree the case is extraordinary.
It is not easy to separate fact from myth, and then it is necessary to formulate plausible hypotheses.
Mrs Fenn's statement is an example.
If the events she reports occured then a hypothesis could be that there is a link to the eventual disappearance.
I've given one possible hypothesis which has imperfections, and there are other hypotheses which have their own imperfections!
Another (admittedly imperfect) theory is outlined below.
Mrs Fenn reports the crying started about 10:30. It appears that checks of the apartment occur at intervals.
Y. Martin reports she was told the intervals were hourly, so 8:30 (arrive at Tapas), 9:30 (check) and 10:30 (check). Other reports suggest the interval was 30mins, these were reported at approx. 9:00, 9:30, 10:00 on 3rd May.
On the 1st we know there were some phone calls just before 10:30, and these may have been made from the apartment (we don't know for certain), which could indicate a 10:30 check.
Therefore it is possible MBM was disturbed by a check of the apartment, and there is nothing more to it (again, assuming the event is reported accurately by Mrs Fenn).
An alternative hypothesis could be an aborted abduction, which incorporates Sadie's suggestion that there was a 'watcher' as part of a planned abduction.
The ideal time to abduct, in my view, would be shortly after a check, to give maximum time before discovery.
A possible hypothesis could be that a 'watcher' saw the completed check close to 10:30 on the 1st, and a planned abduction was instigated (the watcher and the abductor could be the same person or different people).
Obviously MBM was not abducted on the 1st, so perhaps the aduction was aborted due the MBM starting to cry and making too much noise.
The problem with this theory is why didn't MBM report what had happened? Is is possible she was not fully awake, or perhaps anything she said was dismissed as a bad dream, and insufficient importance was attached to the event by the parents.
But, it is an establised fact that some form of 'cying incident' was reported by the parents, and the strong implication is they believe an earlier attempt to abduct may have taken place, but their timings do not agree with Mrs Fenn's report.
What would be the practical investigative impact of this theorising? In my view, it is important to looks back in time. Check alibis for the earlier days in the week around 8:30pm to 10:30pm - is there a person of interest who could be the watcher? What do the phone records show?In summary it is possible to formulate theories and hypotheses, but not too easy to follow them through to any kind of conclusion, due to the wide degree of uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the current state of the investigation.
-----
A variation of the opportunity theory would be that someone had general plan, but no specific target in mind.
Then the opportunity presented itself. This is an alternative to the hastily concocted plan.
Financial affairs may not have been known in advance, but it may have become known the group were medical professionals, which could have led to assumptions about finances.
There are a number of plausible motives for a planned abduction; there appears to be a lot of uncertainty with repect to motive.
----
Re: buckets and spade
Based on two statements I believe it is pretty much established there was a breeze on the night of the 3rd.
The rogatory statement by DPayne casts some doubt over whether the window and shutters were open.
In my opinion, a "finder of fact" could reasonably conclude the window and shutters were closed (there is the possibility of a false memory situation, induced by stress - there does appear to be some academic reports about false memories).
----
Re: dogs
The CSI dog is clearly certified to identify blood. There appears to be a fairly rigorous certification process, although how well 'lab' conditions translate into real world conditions is not certain.
The EVRD dog is not so clearly certified, presumably because the purpose of the EVRD dog to locate human remains.
The idea of using the EVRD dog for screening would appear to be far more problematic, and if there is no certification process that would raise 'red flags' as to the efficacy of the method.
It is hard to discount the sheer number of EVRD alerts, but there is no basis, in the opinion of the handler, to draw any conclusions from the alerts unless backed by forensic evidence.
Cross contamination is possible. There is no scientific means of determine what, if anything, EVRD was alerting to.
----
All IMO. It is not been established whether there was an abduction, or whether any crime did occur and, if it did, the motive for the crime.
