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.
It would be so much easier to formulate the perfect hypotheses if we had all the info - or maybe not, given how long the PJ & Met have been working on it. :)
A crying incident which occurred involving the McCann children on the Monday or Tuesday was formally reported to the PJ by GM in his statement of 10th May.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm“He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.”
Unfortunately, we do not have a statement from Kate taken around the same time which corroborates that particular incident.
Possibly it was Mrs Fenn who suffered a hazy memory re. the crying some 3 months later. She recalled the correct evening but not the precise times the crying started & ceased. If the crying incident did occur after the parents had returned to 5A that night then it is unlikely to have been caused by an aborted abduction attempt IMO, particularly as Madeleine did not mention an unusual disturbance to Kate. Of course,without confirmation from Mrs Glyn & the phone data, it’s all supposition as you said.
With regard to the frequency of the checks on the Tuesday, I am guessing that they were not half-hourly or even hourly. It was quiz night, which must have taken place during the time the group ate dinner & between 2130 & 2150 hrs the quiz mistress was invited by GM to their table. Possibly between 2030hrs & 2150hrs neither of the McCanns went back to the apartment to check on the children.
There is always the possibility that the scenario you suggested could have taken place on the Wednesday night, when the parents admit to being out later than usual. However, I do struggle with the concept that there was an aborted attempt which left no evidence & that potential abductors failed to take advantage during the extended periods of parental absence. I also struggle with the idea that a non-resident had engaged in prolonged monitoring of the apartment, unnoticed, over 2 or 3 nights before the plan was executed.
IMO Kate was not suffering from false memory about the curtains, window & shutter. Had the window & shutter been as she left it, her first reaction would have been to assume that Madeleine was elsewhere in the apartment, maybe hiding – not that someone had taken her. External doors found as they had been left would not have been an indication that she had wandered: a child would wasn’t to be able to easily return to the place of safety.
IMO a vehicle had to have been used at some stage or Madeleine would have been found in Luz. That fact alone, though, does not rule out the slight niggle of parental involvement.
