Hi Sadie,
Thanks for starting this thread. I appreciate your interest in my 'theory', and I salute your quest to consider the different facets of an argument - the only way of making progress
I apologise for the delay in replying. Sherlock is presently on location in New York dealing with another assignment - crime in London being disappointingly slow - so please anticipate a different pattern sometimes.
Ok, since it's you, I'll divulge a bit more.
As we all know, the 'bigger picture' in terms of what could have happened is very significant in this case, and that is why I am also interested in your position. Portugal has a significant history of child abductions, police corruption, organised child abuse (Casia Pia, etc). Then there is its geographical position, with ease of access to North Africa and other European countries. Wealthy Yacht owners, Moroccan Gypsies, former Yugoslavian crime rings, the Russian mafia - and that's before we talk about the Catholic church or the sex lives of the Belgians.
In addition, Luz itself seems to be a vulnerable spot. All kinds of shady characters were sighted there prior to Madeleine's disappearance. ( It is even possible that entirely separate people or groups were spying on 5A at the same time. Maybe they were even working simultaneously, unbeknownst to each other, on the night - but that's another thread.)
The presence of so many different options, geographically wide-ranging and from the top of society to the bottom, increases enormously the statistical likelihood of the disappearance being related to someone outside the family and close circle. Not something we have in every abduction case, at least not to this extent - something the Pat Browns of this world, and others among the culturally-challenged, should remember.
Having said all that, there is also the possibility of a lone abductor, or a very small, local unit working for their own purposes and unattached to the world beyond.
What I am trying to do at the moment, Sadie, for the sake of simplicity, and because I am new on the case, is to see if the possibility of a lone abductor can be ruled out, before going on to the more daunting prospect of tackling some of the broader theories.
Bundleman, therefore, is my starting point. Looking at him and his movements, can we glimpse the psychological profile of a lone abductor? Or do his actions speak of a 'professional' team? And is what he did on the night, in terms of logistics, explicable without bringing anyone else into the equation? If we don't need anyone else in the equation, then perhaps he is a loner, and the investigation can be conducted according to the guidelines and techniques applicable in that instance.
Let's look at his movements - through which thought-process and mindset can be partially inferred - on the night. According to the information we have, everything can be accounted for in the context of him operating alone. Things happen something like this:
Jane sees him leaving the apartment at approximately 9.15. When did he enter? A few minutes before hand, when Gerry and Jez were standing in the street? Not likely. Even if he could bypass them, he still risked screaming children, whom Gerry and Jez would have heard, once he got inside.
As has been proposed before, he enters shortly before Gerry's check around 9. Why at that time, when a check was soon due? Maybe there was someone around in the minutes before 9. The other T7 were still on their way to the tapas until nearly 9. Perhaps a stranger walked by. The coast is clear and he takes the chance, knowing that he can be in and out very quickly. He is not quick enough, however, and Gerry enters. Where the abductor hides I am not sure. Maybe under one of the beds? Gerry leaves a few minutes later. The abductor gives him a minute or two to get back to the restaurant, then prepares to leave. Perhaps he checks the patio doors for people in the street, and sees Gerry and Jez; perhaps not. Already being inside the apartment at the time Gerry and Jez were talking, therefore either not realising they were there, or, at least, being powerless to avoid them, would explain the performance of the abduction at such a dangerous time. Whatever the case, he has to get away from the apartment, and leaves. Nothing is more dangerous than remaining inside. He leaves by the front door to be seen by Jane shortly after.
Now let's fast forward to the Smiths, and return later the question of what happened in the time in between. The Smith sighting is maybe even more important than Jane's, because there were several witnesses in the Smith party, and because, I contend, we learn a lot more about the abductor's apparently erratic nature - running around the town on foot - than is inferrable from the previous sighting. And it is here at this sighting, because we see that the abductor has covered a distance, that we ask the critical question, 'where was the car?'.
As I have said before, 'it is inconceivable that it would be the plan A of a sane person to cover so much ground on foot in the circumstances, courting so much attention. A thief in a major heist does not parade around the town, casting his bounty skyward, at the very time the crime is being discovered'. If we accept this premise, namely, that this type of behaviour would not constitute the concerted action of a normal person, then there are only two things can be drawn from the Smith sighting in terms of who the abductor, in general terms, was: either he was mentally/ emotionally disturbed or below par, and incapable of behaving logically for any period of time (more on that in a minute), who perhaps operated locally and therefore did not have need for a 'getaway' car; or, he was a member of a team whose plan A included a car, but something went wrong. (These two possibilities are not mutually-exclusive, but let's keep it simple for now).
Now let's look at lone abductors. Sherlock read recently in America - only a rough guide in our European case, but an important one - that of the children who are killed by their abductor within the first 48-72 hours of being taken, 75% are killed and disposed of within the first three hours, and 44% are killed and disposed of within the very first hour. Hard to take in, but true.
Using these statistics as a guide in constructing a hypothesis - and nothing more - let's go back to bundleman's timeline. (Thanks for bearing with me!). We have oft wondered about the 'mystery' 45 minutes, or thereabouts, between 9.45 and 10, and of the opposite directions in which bundleman was walking in each sighting. (This is assuming we are talking about one and the same person, of course, but let's not mix up too many threads). It is possible that bundleman, working alone, goes to a rented apartment after leaving 5A, or, as some have suggested, to the secluded shrub grounds slightly to the north, abuses Madeleine (sorry about the graphics), and is on his way to kill and dispose of her when he passes the Smiths. It is even possible, on the American timeline, that by the time he passes the Smiths, she is already dead. This, obviously, would explain her quietness. She could only have been drugged or dead by this point. (Was the latter possibility ever put by a police officer to Mr Smith?) On this timeline, given the tasks at hand for bundleman, 45 minutes begins to seem like a much shorter space of time, and all the gaps are filled.
What he does next, we have no evidence / sightings for. We can conjecture from this hypothesis that he buries her somewhere in the beach environs, either within that first hour or not long afterwards.
Returning to bundleman's psychology, if the sketch of his movements we have just drawn is anything to go by, the profile of a lone hunter can certainly be discerned. Lacking the emotional and psychological maturity for adult relationships, his unmet needs force him to take control of children. Desperation - not cleverness - musters up in him the mental focus required to stalk and capture his prey. This mental focus, unlike intelligence, is temporary, and vanishes when the deed is done. (He takes Madeleine from 5A to his apartment or some other place and harms her. Now what?)
Walking through the town (Smith sighting), a normal person is vulnerable. The abductor, on the other hand, is king of control: he controls a child through the two most controlling acts a man can commit against a person (he has just committed one, and is on his way, probably, to commit another); as a bonus, he wrests control of her from her parents and those she 'belongs' to. He is flying on a psychological high. This, when the Smiths saw him, was his means of transportation.
This is only an idea, Sadie, about what could have transpired if one man was involved. He doesn't need an accomplice for any of the above. Exactly what happens next, I am obviously not sure, and don't want to add to the unhappy topic of this post, so I'll pause for now.
Lastly, returning to what I said near the top, I want to reiterate that I am only going through this scenario in order to attempt to rule it out, and let's hope we manage that. Being new on this case, however, I don't see anything concrete enough to suggest an alternative scenario, as yet. Concrete, as far as I understand, being the presence of hard evidence or demonstrable facts, or the near-certain implication of 'facts' based on facts we already have.
Thanks for reading.
