Theory #1

[sadie]

"We only get a couple of glimpses at her behaviour, so I tend to think she was a rather naughty child and had worked out how to evade being caught.

I think that she was a spirited girl with high energy levels, rather than naughty.

At least a couple of people commented how well behaved she was.   Sorry, I cant remember who they were.  Maybe someone else can, please.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I do not have time to fully reply at the moment, but I am working on the possibility of making an amendment to the theory of Heri Janosch.

From memory he put forward the possibility that MBM recognised the burglar and that formed the motive.

As you say if the potential burglar had a key there would be no need for the window.

Heri suggests that MBM was abducted through the window.

The alternative, as you suggest, is that MBM was lured to door, which may have been easy if she did recognise the individual.

At this point MBM was walked barefooted along the tracker dog route. The tracker dogs would not have detected any other individual.

I hope this is not too much of a stretch, but it is possible JT saw someone at the point she went to 'relieve' ROB, rather than earlier in the evening. Memory fallibility as discussed elsewhere on the forum could easily have impacted JT. The timings look fairly consistent with this modification, otherwise the JT sighting is probably the innocent holiday maker, suggested by SY.

This is a very good well thought out theory, and sold as such, nice change on this forum.

It is believable.    I don't have a theory, I enjoy reading and listening to realistic ones. JT-something about this I feel uneasy about. why would she change her time to sit in with Gerrys story?

[Innominate]

This is a very good well thought out theory, and sold as such, nice change on this forum.

It is believable.    I don't have a theory, I enjoy reading and listening to realistic ones. JT-something about this I feel uneasy about. why would she change her time to sit in with Gerrys story?

With the caveat it is a theory and quite possibly wrong, my view is ...

The JT sighting is not essential: MBM could have been alone and taken the tracker dog trail.

If, however, she was walked away by an unknown third party, the tracker dog evidence would appear to be the same. At the end of the tracker dog trail it is possible the third party decided to carry her.

The general direction of the trail is towards the east. The tracker dog trail is circuitous, but there are simple reasons why it may have worked out like that. The thrust of the direction is toward the east, which is the direction reported by JT. There is, therefore, a coincidence: the possible sighting of a third party carrying a bare-footed child in the correct direction.

IMO the reported timing of the JT sighting does not work well, but perhaps she was simply mistaken as to when she made the sighting. There is common agreement she left to 'relieve' ROB, and this is probably established fact, and perhaps this is when the sighting occurred.

There are two potential anomalies in the statements with respect to the sighting: (1) GMcC reports the JT as being 50m from the individual, which would place JT at the entrance, and (2) JT reports:

4078    “And was that, is there another pavement there, on the junction?”
Reply    “No, they were on, there’s a junction, this is sort of the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along”.
4078    “So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?”
Reply    “Yeah”.

I'm not clear how to interpret those comment.

Anyway the JT sighting is not essential to the theory, but it is possible that it would fit if the timings were different.

The question why JT reported the sighting at a different time could be down to fallibility of memory, and the possible accidental contamination of memories because of the discussions that took place before the police interviews. All the parties that night are likely to have been shocked about events, and, perhaps, misremembered the times and frequency of the checks that were made.

All IMO, and not an attempt to displace any other theory.

[Brietta]

With the caveat it is a theory and quite possibly wrong, my view is ...

The JT sighting is not essential: MBM could have been alone and taken the tracker dog trail.

If, however, she was walked away by an unknown third party, the tracker dog evidence would appear to be the same. At the end of the tracker dog trail it is possible the third party decided to carry her.

The general direction of the trail is towards the east. The tracker dog trail is circuitous, but there are simple reasons why it may have worked out like that. The thrust of the direction is toward the east, which is the direction reported by JT. There is, therefore, a coincidence: the possible sighting of a third party carrying a bare-footed child in the correct direction.

IMO the reported timing of the JT sighting does not work well, but perhaps she was simply mistaken as to when she made the sighting. There is common agreement she left to 'relieve' ROB, and this is probably established fact, and perhaps this is when the sighting occurred.

There are two potential anomalies in the statements with respect to the sighting: (1) GMcC reports the JT as being 50m from the individual, which would place JT at the entrance, and (2) JT reports:

4078    “And was that, is there another pavement there, on the junction?”
Reply    “No, they were on, there’s a junction, this is sort of the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along”.
4078    “So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?”
Reply    “Yeah”.

I'm not clear how to interpret those comment.

Anyway the JT sighting is not essential to the theory, but it is possible that it would fit if the timings were different.

The question why JT reported the sighting at a different time could be down to fallibility of memory, and the possible accidental contamination of memories because of the discussions that took place before the police interviews. All the parties that night are likely to have been shocked about events, and, perhaps, misremembered the times and frequency of the checks that were made.

All IMO, and not an attempt to displace any other theory.

You have posted ...

Quote
4078    “And was that, is there another pavement there, on the junction?”
Reply    “No, they were on, there’s a junction, this is sort of the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along”.
4078    “So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?”
Reply    “Yeah”.

I'm not clear how to interpret those comment. End quote

I do not understand why you have a problem interpreting that ... please explain for me.

[misty]

With the caveat it is a theory and quite possibly wrong, my view is ...

The JT sighting is not essential: MBM could have been alone and taken the tracker dog trail.

If, however, she was walked away by an unknown third party, the tracker dog evidence would appear to be the same. At the end of the tracker dog trail it is possible the third party decided to carry her.

The general direction of the trail is towards the east. The tracker dog trail is circuitous, but there are simple reasons why it may have worked out like that. The thrust of the direction is toward the east, which is the direction reported by JT. There is, therefore, a coincidence: the possible sighting of a third party carrying a bare-footed child in the correct direction.

IMO the reported timing of the JT sighting does not work well, but perhaps she was simply mistaken as to when she made the sighting. There is common agreement she left to 'relieve' ROB, and this is probably established fact, and perhaps this is when the sighting occurred.

There are two potential anomalies in the statements with respect to the sighting: (1) GMcC reports the JT as being 50m from the individual, which would place JT at the entrance, and (2) JT reports:

4078    “And was that, is there another pavement there, on the junction?”
Reply    “No, they were on, there’s a junction, this is sort of the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along”.
4078    “So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?”
Reply    “Yeah”.

I'm not clear how to interpret those comment.

Anyway the JT sighting is not essential to the theory, but it is possible that it would fit if the timings were different.

The question why JT reported the sighting at a different time could be down to fallibility of memory, and the possible accidental contamination of memories because of the discussions that took place before the police interviews. All the parties that night are likely to have been shocked about events, and, perhaps, misremembered the times and frequency of the checks that were made.

All IMO, and not an attempt to displace any other theory.

If you dismiss the timing of Jane's 9.15pm sighting in favour of one at 9.45pm, DCI Redwood's statement that Crecheman thought the sighting may be him & his family is totally invalidated.

However, for the purpose of your theory, Tannerman/Crecheman should be treated as irrelevant if Madeleine walked the tracker dog route to the point at which the scent was lost. Perhaps you would elaborate on why you think Madeleine left the apartment by the front door, either accompanied or unaccompanied & what could have subsequently happened in the overlooked car lot behind  Block 6.

[jassi]

If you dismiss the timing of Jane's 9.15pm sighting in favour of one at 9.45pm, DCI Redwood's statement that Crecheman thought the sighting may be him & his family is totally invalidated.

However, for the purpose of your theory, Tannerman/Crecheman should be treated as irrelevant if Madeleine walked the tracker dog route to the point at which the scent was lost. Perhaps you would elaborate on why you think Madeleine left the apartment by the front door, either accompanied or unaccompanied & what could have subsequently happened in the overlooked car lot behind  Block 6.

If Crecheman exists and Tanner sticks to 9.15, then it is perfectly reasonable for Redwood to conclude that they are one and the same.

[misty]

If Crecheman exists and Tanner sticks to 9.15, then it is perfectly reasonable for Redwood to conclude that they are one and the same.

Agreed - but not if Crecheman believed he was the widely-reported 9.15 sighting and Jane really saw a different man + child at 9.45. That leaves an identified man who wasn't seen & an unidentified man who was seen.

[jassi]

Agreed - but not if Crecheman believed he was the widely-reported 9.15 sighting and Jane really saw a different man + child at 9.45. That leaves an identified man who wasn't seen & an unidentified man who was seen.

Tanner hasn't admitted to that, so the existence of  a second unidentified man is pure speculation.

[misty]

Tanner hasn't admitted to that, so the existence of  a second unidentified man is pure speculation.

I know. We digress. Tannerman is not a feature of the theory in OP.

[Robittybob1]

From the OP "The Moyles were on their balcony from about 9:30 to 10pm and this also points to an earlier timeline."

That is one sentence I wonder if you have right.  From my recollection it was a the Moyes rather than Moyles but were they on the balcony that late?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11849787  Moyes mentioned here.

Some reason I thought the couple were seen the night before but this article has it the same night.  I'm confused again.  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3429641/mystery-couple-seen-clambering-over-wall-and-fence-directly-behind-apartment-where-madeleine-mccann-was-sleeping-on-night-she-vanished/

"The headline, is:

Mystery couple seen going into McCanns’ flat on night before sobbing Madeleine disappeared."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1596.msg47579#msg47579

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1596.msg47506#msg47506  Original article says this happened on the night before.

[Brietta]

From the OP "The Moyles were on their balcony from about 9:30 to 10pm and this also points to an earlier timeline."

That is one sentence I wonder if you have right.  From my recollection it was a the Moyes rather than Moyles but were they on the balcony that late?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11849787  Moyes mentioned here.

Some reason I thought the couple were seen the night before but this article has it the same night.  I'm confused again.  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3429641/mystery-couple-seen-clambering-over-wall-and-fence-directly-behind-apartment-where-madeleine-mccann-was-sleeping-on-night-she-vanished/

"The headline, is:

Mystery couple seen going into McCanns’ flat on night before sobbing Madeleine disappeared."  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1596.msg47579#msg47579

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1596.msg47506#msg47506  Original article says this happened on the night before.

"We went out for a meal about 7 o'clock, down in the town, we walked back about 9 o'clock, round past, errm... the... the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment, went out on the balcony about quarter past nine - everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely - we then went to bed."  Susan Moyes
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id52.htm

[Innominate]

You have posted ...

Quote
4078    “And was that, is there another pavement there, on the junction?”
Reply    “No, they were on, there’s a junction, this is sort of the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along”.
4078    “So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?”
Reply    “Yeah”.

I'm not clear how to interpret those comment. End quote

I do not understand why you have a problem interpreting that ... please explain for me.

It may be nothing, but I wondered what she meant about walking along the side of the pavement that she was about to walk along.

It just seemed an odd way of describing someone simply crossing the junction from left to right.

Probably nothing.

[misty]

When a picture paints a thousand words (OK, maybe 100 in this case).

[Alice Purjorick]

When a picture paints a thousand words (OK, maybe 100 in this case).

It is truly amazing what that sketch eventually morphed into.

[Robittybob1]

"We went out for a meal about 7 o'clock, down in the town, we walked back about 9 o'clock, round past, errm... the... the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment, went out on the balcony about quarter past nine - everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely - we then went to bed."  Susan Moyes
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id52.htm

OK she doesn't say how long she stayed out on the balcony.  She doesn't talk of hearing Jez and Gerry talking so that might have been just after their conversation finished I presume.  But it didn't confirm the OP ("9:30 -10:00").