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.
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.
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/
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.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.
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 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.
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?(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/12/article-0-088B90CB000005DC-185_468x286.jpg)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
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/12/article-0-088B90CB000005DC-185_468x286.jpg)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
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 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?
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.
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 IMOIf that was so the person would need to know quite a bit about the family to get the name right. How would you explain calling out the right name?
I know the McCann's and her family think that Madeleine would have screamed the place down if an intruder got in, but small children can be easily fooled. Even calling her Madeleine would have put her off guard as it is personal 'he knows my name'. If the person was saying something like, I've come to take you to Mummy and Daddy, she may have been fooled into opening the door. IMOThe kids names were recorded on the creche sheets.
Why would any person intent on taking a child call her name so loudly that it was audible over a block away?Seems very improbable that whoever did this was an abductor.
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?
I know the McCann's and her family think that Madeleine would have screamed the place down if an intruder got in, but small children can be easily fooled. Even calling her Madeleine would have put her off guard as it is personal 'he knows my name'. If the person was saying something like, I've come to take you to Mummy and Daddy, she may have been fooled into opening the door. IMO
IMO Madeleine would have fled from the bedroom to look for her parents well before any burglar had the chance to entice her into opening a door. The burglar would also have had to known there was no adult in the apartment.I think that is very important. If you are right it points to someone being at the patio door to make Madeleine want to escape out through the front door (in this theory).
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.
I think that is very important. If you are right it points to someone being at the patio door to make Madeleine want to escape out through the front door (in this theory).
Why would any person intent on taking a child call her name so loudly that it was audible over a block away?
IMO Madeleine would have fled from the bedroom to look for her parents well before any burglar had the chance to entice her into opening a door. The burglar would also have had to known there was no adult in the apartment.
I look forward to reading the amended theory, which presumably includes an open window & shutter to enable Madeleine to recognise the potential burglar turned abductor.
Ruling out Tannerman would not constitute enough evidence to warrant the re-opening of the case imo.
I agree with that too[gosh!].
After Mr Cameron dropped The Met in it, ankle deep head first, by insisting they conducted a "review" it is not beyond the realms of possibility that The Met/ UK Judiciary had to go cap in hand to the Portuguese Judiciary requesting they reopen the case. Otherwise there was a distinct possibility the Met Review would go nowhere fast, them having no jurisdiction in the place where it all happened.
The aborted burglary theory would not involve a villain at both doors imo - double the risk of being seen/caught.Do you think Madeleine had been told that Mummy or Daddy would be coming back every half hour to check on them? So what happens if she was up when Matt arrived at the patio door, who would she think that was? OK if it wasn't Matt at the patio door, could it have been some other friendly person? It doesn't have to be a villain at both doors to be frightened as Madeleine has no means of working out who's who at the patio door.
Any potential burglar would have needed to arrive unseen, carry out the job, then leave unseen. To steal large or heavy goods, a vehicle would have been needed close-by. Where was it & why did the person choose to circumvent Block 5 rather than go out the patio door, down the steps & cross the road to the place where the scent was lost? IMO it would be more suspicious to be seen coming out of the alleyway than the side gate of 5A.
I agree.But which door does she go out of if for any reason she heard the child gate open and close?
The face value would be she woke up to find mum and dad missing, being we are to led to believe a strong willed single minded little girl, then went to look for them.
Do you think Madeleine had been told that Mummy or Daddy would be coming back every half hour to check on them? So what happens if she was up when Matt arrived at the patio door, who would she think that was? OK if it wasn't Matt at the patio door, could it have been some other friendly person? It doesn't have to be a villain at both doors to be frightened as Madeleine has no means of working out who's who at the patio door.
I think the point of this thread is to discuss an aborted burglary involving the window/shutter & Madeleine exiting via the front door. Being frightened by Matt entering via the patio door would not explain the open window/shutter.I was responding to your comment Misty: "The aborted burglary theory would not involve a villain at both doors imo - double the risk of being seen/caught."
IMO.
I was responding to your comment Misty: "The aborted burglary theory would not involve a villain at both doors imo - double the risk of being seen/caught."
The point I'm making is that the burglar doesn't have to be at both doors and at the window. It is Madeleine who has to be able to comprehend who is at the door. If she was woken by the burglar and then hears someone approaching toward the patio door how did she comprehend that? What does she do?
But which door does she go out of if for any reason she heard the child gate open and close?
If she left her bed to look for her parents after being disturbed by a noise at the window, where do you think she was when Matthew entered through the patio door? Would she not have thought her parents were coming back in & rushed towards the patio door?There is the eternally unexplained open door to the kids bedroom found open at Matt's check. Gerry found the door open at 9:05 replaced it and then Matt also finds the door moved. I think he checks if Madeleine went into the main bedroom but doesn't do a full check of the apartment. So it is possible she could have been hiding somewhere else in the apartment, something like Kate thought initially too. Matt did not touch the door so it was found open by Kate too. She immediately thought it was Matt who had moved it but it was open before Matt's check.
That makes two persons[burgulars] or one burgular and one checker.Exactly. When you are doing a burglary it is possible to be encountered by another person, and to wake up sleeping children. They need to have ways to deal with events like this.
One coming up the steps and one coming round the front to gain access to the window.... *%87
There is the eternally unexplained open door to the kids bedroom found open at Matt's check. Gerry found the door open at 9:05 replaced it and then Matt also finds the door moved. I think he checks if Madeleine went into the main bedroom but doesn't do a full check of the apartment. So it is possible she could have been hiding somewhere else in the apartment, something like Kate thought initially too. Matt did not touch the door so it was found open by Kate too. She immediately thought it was Matt who had moved it but it was open before Matt's check.
"Would she not have thought her parents were coming back in & rushed towards the patio door?" No not if she is frightened.
For this thread, we are considering Madeleine leaving only by the main door, apparently consistent with the route followed by the S&R dogs just over 24hrs after she disappeared. She did not leave during Matt's visit or make any audible noises of distress.There has to be some event between Madeleine being woken and her escaping via the front door. I would not think it likely that Madeleine was aware there was a burglar at the kid's window and then running out the front door since the door and the window are on the same side of the building.
Why wouldn't she have rushed towards someone coming through the patio door? Wouldn't she have believed that her absent parents were coming in from the balcony?
There has to be some event between Madeleine being woken and her escaping via the front door. I would not think it likely that Madeleine was aware there was a burglar at the kid's window and then running out the front door since the door and the window are on the same side of the building.
Exactly. When you are doing a burglary it is possible to be encountered by another person, and to wake up sleeping children. They need to have ways to deal with events like this.
So you shouldn't be surprised by this. Especially as they are at the same building but on different sides of the building.
All hypothetically speaking.We are trying to link the findings to a theory, so it is all hypothetical.
To cover every eventuality here, i.e to avoid having to fight his way out the burgular would have needed at least two lookouts who were prepared to "come the heavy" if necessary. That is not the MO of your typical burgular [see any insurance company website for burgulars MOs].Well it is possible to have lookouts so we can't say it didn't happen. I can't see how you could claim there weren't lookouts and even if there were they could still be surprised by the pattern of the joint check by Matt and Russell at 9:30 PM.
I doubt it works at 37.0909° N, 8.7591° W though as that seems to be in a time -space continuum of its own where no known laws of anything can apply; well if you believe this forum it is.
We are trying to link the findings to a theory, so it is all hypothetical.
Well it is possible to have lookouts so we can't say it didn't happen. I can't see how you could claim there weren't lookouts and even if there were they could still be surprised by the pattern of the joint check by Matt and Russell at 9:30 PM.
In my opinion when theory clashes with fact in a sentence it is best to emphasise exactly what is what for the sake of clarity and accuracy. Your first sentence in the post to which I replied stated, "There has to be some event between Madeleine being woken and her escaping via the front door." is entirely hypothetical and in my opinion that has to be stated somewhere within the post and not only in the thread title.I did edit that post. I did say " I would not think it likely that Madeleine was aware there was a burglar at the kid's window and then running out the front door since the door and the window are on the same side of the building." Does the person proposing the theory think Madeleine ran out the door on the same side of the building as the burglar opening the window? I don't that is why there is theoretically an event which forces the unexpected outcome.
Hypothetically, why would the lookout/person at patio door enter the apartment if access was to be achieved via the front window?You are frustrating me by asking me questions about things I have never said. I have never said "the lookout/person at patio door enter the apartment". It was Matt doing his check who entered the apartment.
You are frustrating me by asking me questions about things I have never said. I have never said "the lookout/person at patio door enter the apartment". It was Matt doing his check who entered the apartment.
I did edit that post. I did say " I would not think it likely that Madeleine was aware there was a burglar at the kid's window and then running out the front door since the door and the window are on the same side of the building." Does the person proposing the theory think Madeleine ran out the door on the same side of the building as the burglar opening the window? I don't that is why there is theoretically an event which forces the unexpected outcome.
Yes, sorry. It's the introduction of lookouts & someone/something preventing Madeleine leaving via the patio door which is the issue.It is the one thing which distinguishes this theory from others. Why would Madeleine leave on the same side of the building as the potential burglars are opening the window. It is not instinctive for animals to do this unless they are cornered. Try and capture a pig, and when it is cornered it will run right past you.
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.Please do not forget the patio door in the parents bedroom.
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.
It is the one thing which distinguishes this theory from others. Why would Madeleine leave on the same side of the building as the potential burglars are opening the window. It is not instinctive for animals to do this unless they are cornered. Try and capture a pig, and when it is cornered it will run right past you.
It is the flight reaction of a person. IMO She would not know who was coming and what they were wanting to do, causing her to panic.
That is why IMO "there has to be some event between Madeleine being woken and her escaping via the front door" to make her think the danger is coming from the patio side of the building.
Is a child of almost 4 able to correlate a noise at a window or an opening door with an unseen potential intruder who may wish her harm? That is what would determine flight response.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 evaded.
Please do not forget the patio door in the parents bedroom.From the OP this theory "In this theory a burglary was commenced, and then aborted when MBM was disturbed, presumably by the noise.
There are FOUR potential exit routes not three
If you had been there as it was in 2007, you would immediately believe that only The Front Door was likely.
- The front door was recessed right back and virtually unseen from outside
- No-one passed it en route to their apartment.
- No one passed it at all because the walled passageway ended there .
- The front door was in almost total darkness, because the nearest streetlight had its lamp actually within the head of a tree and apart from that there were just a couple of more distant ones that had the entire heads of trees in the way, blocking the light.
- There was no moonlight until 10pm, when the moon rose
- There was no big light on the front of 5A as is shown on more recent photos
- There was a chest high pathway wall in front of the front door, which any intruder could have bobbed down behind had any one come at all close, say when parking a car almost directly in front of the front door. Some one parking a car was the only danger, but with that pathway wall an intruder could have easily hidden himself
The recessed front door was hidden from view, and in blackness
All the other doors were open to view, altho I dont think that the parents bedroom patio doors were illuminated from the street lamp opposite as the main patio was.
Tbh, in my opinion, exiting throught the parents bedroom door would have been safer than using the patio door to the sitting room, cos not only was it not illuminated, but there was alsio a bush in the line of vision of the Tapas group for part of the window
To me, the obvious safe way in and out was via the front door
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 evaded.I don't understand the last par tof your post, Rob.
I don't understand the last par tof your post, Rob."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.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-deleted-daily-express-articles-in-chronologica-t247-s20.html
Sat May 26 2007
*snipped*
.......Sitting side by side in an apartment in the complex close to where Madeleine was abducted Mr McCann smiled as he described Madeleine’s personality saying that she was a “ringleader” and had enjoyed her holiday tiring her parents out with a game in which she would shout “Be a monster, be a monster”.
Mrs McCann said, smiling: “She likes talking, she really likes role play.”
------------------------------------------------
How frightened of any potential monster at the window would Madeleine have been? Does Gerry's quote suggest that it was something to be feared?
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Tanner hasn't admitted to that, so the existence of a second unidentified man is pure speculation.
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.
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.
When a picture paints a thousand words (OK, maybe 100 in this case).
"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 MoyesOK 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").
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id52.htm
When a picture paints a thousand words (OK, maybe 100 in this case).The legend notes were never translated either.
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.
Years ago I suggested in my blog that JT saw the abductor at approximately 21:50.According to most statements @ 21:50 Jane Tanner would have allowed Russell to go back to the Tapas bar. At 21:50 she would theoretically be in her apartment so how does she get to see any abductor from there?
But now I am not interested in JT sighting, although I continue thinking she really saw the abductor at 21:50.
I had closed my blog on MBM, and tried to forget the case. And got busy with Diana Quer and Manuela Chavero Spanish cases. But now I have a new hint about MBM case, a possible burglar acting in the same location, near 5A, in April 2007. He is not one of the arguidos.
According to most statements @ 21:50 Jane Tanner would have allowed Russell to go back to the Tapas bar. At 21:50 she would theoretically be in her apartment so how does she get to see any abductor from there?
How did Jane return to the apartment to relieve Russell of his parental duty?Exactly. What time did that happen? We have Matt returning and telling Jane that ROB was looking after Evie. So she rushes her meal down and returns to the apartment. According to GA Jane would have returned via the alleyway and ROB would have left the same way as by then Jane was there. No need to take the long way around when someone in the apartment. There seems to be a lot of rushing but no one really defines the time.
Exactly. What time did that happen? We have Matt returning and telling Jane that ROB was looking after Evie. So she rushes her meal down and returns to the apartment. According to GA Jane would have returned via the alleyway and ROB would have left the same way as by then Jane was there. No need to take the long way around when someone in the apartment. There seems to be a lot of rushing but no one really defines the time.
So when and where did she see the man?
According to Jane ... who I think is the person best placed to know her movements ... she left the tapas area and walked up R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins towards block five, passing Gerry and Jes on the way,Trouble with that is it isn't the time period raised by Heriberto. 21.50H not 21.15.
She saw the man and child walking along R. Dr. Agostinho da Silva crossing the road at the junction of that and R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and continuing on his way past Block six still on R. Dr. Agostinho da Silva.
Trouble with that is it isn't the time period raised by Heriberto. 21.50H not 21.15.
Since we do not know the time sequence which may have been followed by an ... alleged ... abductor I have never gone into the timing of the witnesses per se.In some scenarios an abduction took place that isn't planned in anyway but forced upon someone. It is for this reason I find it difficult to reply to your post as when I read it you make it sound as if someone was planning to abduct Madeleine and was choosing the right time to do this.
Heriberto has studied these minutely and I bow to his superior knowledge as far as that is concerned.
It is generally recognised that an ... alleged ... abductor would have been capable of striking and being well on his/her way in a few minutes if not seconds ... and whichever timetable you use ... there were gaps which allowed for that. In my opinion.
In some scenarios an abduction took place that isn't planned in anyway but forced upon someone. It is for this reason I find it difficult to reply to your post as when I read it you make it sound as if someone was planning to abduct Madeleine and was choosing the right time to do this.
"Since we do not know the time sequence which may have been followed by an ... alleged ... abductor"
"It is generally recognised that an ... alleged ... abductor would have been capable of striking and being well on his/her way in a few minutes if not seconds ... and whichever timetable you use ... there were gaps which allowed for that."
I can't tell if you intentionally meant what I get from that, but it doesn't flow with the theory that John and some others advocate, that Madeleine woke and wandered, then got hurt.
No one planned to wake her.
No one planned the route she took
No one planned to knock her over.
So in our scenario we can't relate to a planned alleged abduction, as it feels more like a consequence of other random events.
Also what am I trying to time is not the abductor but more events that may have indicated when Madeleine could have woken or when she escaped or when she was knocked over.
Goncalo Amaral in one of his many theories proposed the accident happening inside of the apartment, I seem to recall something about Madeleine climbing up on the sofa and falling from there, that happening when Jez and Gerry were talking on the street below.
Who discovers her deceased in that theory I'm not too sure. But since it isn't in my theory and the timing seemed all wrong to me, I dismissed his theory.
It read as if Heriberto blames the alleged burglars for waking Madeleine and he proposed a specific time for that 21:51 or around there, but I can't recall why, or if he does attempt to explain why Madeleine woken by the burglars would exit the apartment via the front door, on the same side of the apartment as the burglars are operating from. I tend to think maybe Madeleine heard a noise but wasn't sure what woke her. But still why would she exit the front door when the patio door was left unlocked?
Amaral based his theory on flawed data ... there is absolutely no evidence or any reason whatsoever to suppose Madeleine plunged to her death from the sofa."Theory #1" - In this theory a burglary was commenced, and then aborted when MBM was disturbed, presumably by the noise.
If she heard her father's voice ... is there any good reason why she would not have gone to the patio door and either called to him or followed him and be seen by him or Jes?
Why would you think predators do not stalk and plan their evil actions?
"Theory #1" - 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."
OK in this theory we have an aborted burglary, They don't enter the apartment but that wakes Madeleine. It is then theorised that Madeleine leaves by the front door, and that is the bit that troubles me. Why choose the front door rather than the patio door?
Once out on the street she does not make it into the secondary reception.
I don't see any stalking and planing "their evil actions" here in this theory.
How easy would it have been for Madeleine to close that door behind her after exiting and why would she have closed it? There is no indication the door was found to be ajar when Madeleine's absence was noticed.Exactly correct Misty and this has been the focus of much of my research this year. Was it possible to shut the door behind you without a key? We had several threads debating this. I had come to the conclusion the door latch had been modified so that it wouldn't slam shut, but no one really agreed.
Exactly correct Misty and this has been the focus of much of my research this year. Was it possible to shut the door behind you without a key? We had several threads debating this. I had come to the conclusion the door latch had been modified so that it wouldn't slam shut, but no one really agreed.
The point that followed was that if the door could not be shut without a key, and if the door was truly found shut by Kate, and if Madeleine left by the front door, all this could really only be resolved by someone else shutting the front door from the inside and they leaving by the patio door.
Who this someone else could be is open for debate.
If you work on the assumption the front door could be closed without a key, how difficult would that have been for Madeleine?IMO if the latch allowed the door to slam shut the door could have been easily slammed shut by Madeleine or by the wind.
From the screenshot below, at what height would you estimate the door knob is above the ground (the faint blob above the lock)? There also appears to be a shallow step. As Madeleine was reportedly only around 90cm tall, would she have been able to easily reach that knob & also been able to exert sufficient pulling power to close the door?
IMO if the latch allowed the door to slam shut the door could have been easily slammed shut by Madeleine or by the wind.
I'm not familiar with that particular type of sprung latch so I don't know how easily it would slam shut but I suspect it required more force than your average Yale lock.To find out is one of the reasons I'm going to PdL and check it out for myself.
To find out is one of the reasons I'm going to PdL and check it out for myself.
I hope you won't need to make that visit.Did anyone see Arlindo coming and going? Did anyone see the Carpenters crossing the road? No. So you can presume there are sizeable chunks of time people could go unobserved by others.
However, back to the theory that Madeleine could have walked the route the tracker dogs followed on the night of 3rd May 2007 at sometime during this present hour. Those who drop-kicked this idea have so far failed to come up with any plausible explanation regarding what happened next without said event being witnessed by anyone else. Evidence-wise, it appears to have the least amount of support .
IMO.
Did anyone see Arlindo coming and going? Did anyone see the Carpenters crossing the road? No. So you can presume there are sizeable chunks of time people could go unobserved by others.It would be a worthwhile exercise to list all the known people who walked or drove in Rua d Martins between 8.30 & 10pm that night, to determine how long those sizeable chunks of time were, during which a walking Madeleine would not have been seen. Her movement would not have been quick due to lack of suitable footwear.
Same could have happened to Madeleine. Interaction with someone there at the time but unobserved by a 3rd party.
Did anyone see Arlindo coming and going? Did anyone see the Carpenters crossing the road? No. So you can presume there are sizeable chunks of time people could go unobserved by others.
Same could have happened to Madeleine. Interaction with someone there at the time but unobserved by a 3rd party.
I hope you won't need to make that visit.
However, back to the theory that Madeleine could have walked the route the tracker dogs followed on the night of 3rd May 2007 at sometime during this present hour. Those who drop-kicked this idea have so far failed to come up with any plausible explanation regarding what happened next without said event being witnessed by anyone else. Evidence-wise, it appears to have the least amount of support .
IMO.
It would be a worthwhile exercise to list all the known people who walked or drove in Rua d Martins between 8.30 & 10pm that night, to determine how long those sizeable chunks of time were, during which a walking Madeleine would not have been seen. Her movement would not have been quick due to lack of suitable footwear.
Why the scent trail ended in the little car park opposite mini reception will remain a mystery. We are entitled however to speculate as to the various possibilities which ultimately ended in her being carried off. Those possibilities include a simple opportunistic abduction from the street or her being run over and then carried off by someone in sheer panic.
What is beyond dispute is that the scent dogs followed Madeleine's scent. The fact that Madeleine was barefoot the night she disappeared gives even more support to this theory. Had they been following an old scent laid down the previous morning it would not have ended abruptly at the car park.
Mr and Mrs Moyes and Jes Wilkins. Anyone on their way home from having a meal in the tapas (the Carpenters) or elsewhere. Anyone going to or from work. Individuals having a fly smoke or standing outside the tapas having a break etc
I think there could be a comprehensive list of potential witnesses.
Why the scent trail ended in the little car park opposite mini reception will remain a mystery. We are entitled however to speculate as to the various possibilities which ultimately ended in her being carried off. Those possibilities include a simple opportunistic abduction from the street or her being run over and then carried off by someone in sheer panic.
What is beyond dispute is that the scent dogs followed Madeleine's scent. The fact that Madeleine was barefoot the night she disappeared gives even more support to this theory. Had they been following an old scent laid down the previous morning it would not have ended abruptly at the car park.
An incident occurring in the street could have been over very quickly and might not have been witnessed by anyone. After all, Jane Tanner supposedly walked past both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins yet neither men saw her?
I agree, Brietta, in the sense that most of the witnesses were only asked if they saw Madeleine or anything unusual.
The massive fly in the ointment to any W&W theory is the man who was seen carrying a child away from the vicinity of Block 5.
The S&R dogs were given a towel from 5A which was used as a scent control.
Which person in 5A could have:-
1. Used the towel
2. Left by the front door
3. Circumvented Block 5
4. Crossed the road
5. Gone to the Tapas Bar door.
IMO all those elements could be attributed to Gerry on the evening of 3/5 rather than Madeleine.
Logically, I think it highly probable that is the man who is the key to the whole situation.'
Why the scent trail ended in the little car park opposite mini reception will remain a mystery. We are entitled however to speculate as to the various possibilities which ultimately ended in her being carried off. Those possibilities include a simple opportunistic abduction from the street or her being run over and then carried off by someone in sheer panic.
What is beyond dispute is that the scent dogs followed Madeleine's scent. The fact that Madeleine was barefoot the night she disappeared gives even more support to this theory. Had they been following an old scent laid down the previous morning it would not have ended abruptly at the car park.
An incident occurring in the street could have been over very quickly and might not have been witnessed by anyone. After all, Jane Tanner supposedly walked past both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins yet neither men saw her?
Mr and Mrs Moyes and Jes Wilkins. Anyone on their way home from having a meal in the tapas (the Carpenters) or elsewhere. Anyone going to or from work. Individuals having a fly smoke or standing outside the tapas having a break etc
I think there could be a comprehensive list of potential witnesses.
Who saw nothing of note perchance.
'
The problem I have with that person being the abductor would be that he had to be in the apartment at the same time as Gerry doing his check. Just prior to Gerry going there Matt had been around the building, and prior to that the Paynes had been slow at coming down to the Tapas. I fail to see anyone feeling confident or having enough time to enter the build. Around 9:00 PM it was just getting dark, hardly the time anyone would be considering kidnapping a child IMO.
Agreed. Both those possibilities were in the original post.
There are sufficient gaps. The Carpenters saw no one else when they returned to their apartment without seeing anyone, or being witnessed, so logically it is possible to pass the area without seeing anyone or being seen. They also report parked cars by the side of the road; when were these moved?
JT was not seen even when there were two potential witnesses in the immediate vicinity (assuming JT's recollection is correct).
No-one that we know of saw Mr and Mrs Moyes on their walk home from the restaurant crossing the car park and entering block five ... but we know they did.Therein lies one major problem. People were asked to report if they had seen anything suspicious or abnormal.
Who saw nothing of note perchance.
Who may have seen nothing of note at the time because until Madeleine vanished and the word was put out it was just another normal day for everyone in Luz.11 yrs and multi millions the nothing of note is probably the gist of it,imo of course.
Therein lies one major problem. People were asked to report if they had seen anything suspicious or abnormal.
Consequently, we have a very limited picture of what normal activities were going on.
Therein lies one major problem. People were asked to report if they had seen anything suspicious or abnormal.
Consequently, we have a very limited picture of what normal activities were going on.
Who knows what goes through the mind of a kidnapper or an individual who gets the adrenaline going by illicitly entering other peoples homes.
When Jane saw the man walking away with the child the street lights were on.
There is nothing to say he wasn't already in the apartment when Gerry returned to do his check.
There was never anything to say the man Jane Tanner saw was carrying Madeleine McCann let alone that he had been in the apartment.
I agree, Brietta, in the sense that most of the witnesses were only asked if they saw Madeleine or anything unusual.
The massive fly in the ointment to any W&W theory is the man who was seen carrying a child away from the vicinity of Block 5.
'
The problem I have with that person being the abductor would be that he had to be in the apartment at the same time as Gerry doing his check. Just prior to Gerry going there Matt had been around the building, and prior to that the Paynes had been slow at coming down to the Tapas. I fail to see anyone feeling confident or having enough time to enter the build. Around 9:00 PM it was just getting dark, hardly the time anyone would be considering kidnapping a child IMO.
Another very possible explanation is that Madeleine heard her father interacting with Wilkins outside in the street and thought that she would find her way outside too.Can you imagine Theory #1 evolving as a consequence of that?
No-one that we know of saw Mr and Mrs Moyes on their walk home from the restaurant crossing the car park and entering block five ... but we know they did.Do you mean we take their word for it?
Do you mean we take their word for it?
Absolutely.Well then how do you decide who is telling the truth and who isn't? I think the whole point of finding evidence, checking alibis etc is to identify someone who's story does not hold true.
Which is the view that OG have decided on.
Seemingly so; some six years after the PJ had arrived at a similar conclusion.... *%87Were they walking in the same direction?
Were they walking in the same direction?
OG seemed to thinks . Perhaps he was walking backwards.Walking backwards carrying a child! Happens all the time. But no matter if he was walking forward or backwards what direction was he travelling?
Well then how do you decide who is telling the truth and who isn't? I think the whole point of finding evidence, checking alibis etc is to identify someone who's story does not hold true.
Exactly so the refusal to take part in a reconstruction can only be viewed in policing terms as obstructive.The McCanns didn't refuse IMO, it was some of the Tapas 7 and Jez Wilkins who never agreed.
The patrol dogs were given Madeleine's pink blanket to sniff and were the first to follow the route just after 02.30 on 4th.
They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-LACAO.htm
You mean the man known as Tannerman but subsequently referred to as Innocentman given that the nice DCI Redwood all but ruled him out?
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-LACAO.htm
*snipped*
The route initially taken was from the front entrance door to the passageway between Blocks 4 and 5, along the corridor and then along the passage that leads past the entrance to the small reception to the resort's swimming pool. After that the whole of the area surrounding the resort was searched.
With regard to the indications transmitted by his dog Numi, he says that at the beginning he was only "a little interested", he let the dog "get on with it" .
They finished the searches at about 07.00 AM.
His dog's speciality is patrolling (Maintenance of Public Order) although the dog also has some training in "tracking".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARMANDO_MORAIS.htm
*snipped*
After having established exactly where the girl had disappeared from, he was given a piece of her clothing by one of his colleagues, whose name he does not remember.
From the door of the apartment, accompanied by his dog, he walked the entire perimeter around the above mentioned blocks of apartments and also checked the exterior of various houses on that area.
As he did not obtain any results in the area close to the resort, he extended the perimeter of the search to a distance of 1 km.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO those two statements fail to corroborate that the Patrol dogs were following Madeleine's scent at any stage.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
The deponent states that:
- He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
He stated:
- Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
The route was described as:
- That after having smelt the aforementioned towel, next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically next to block 5’s apartment 5A, the first tracker-dog headed toward the door of that apartment, soon whirled about in the direction of block 4, bypassing block 5 along a route (the corridor) that goes around that block and gives unto a path that runs between this block and the resort’s leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). The dog went into the path on the left, heading toward the main road (Francisco Gentil Martins). Once there, he crossed the street and close to block 6’s wall, turned right, heading toward the contiguous parking area, more particularly toward a light post where he sniffed the ground. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the resort’s access zone, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, but finally lost interest in the search, i.e lost the scent.
===
It there a strong reason to doubt the above statement?
1. The statement translation has been altered from the one originally online (note the insertion of the street name which does not appear in the Portuguese version). The original translation also said the dog turned right at the end of the alleyway whereas the Portuguese version said left.
(ETA previously posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg421504#msg421504)
2. The handler referred to an Aztec towel. I do not see why he would have mistaken a pink blanket for an Aztec towel.
3. Would you dispute that the scent could have been just as easily attributed to Gerry's known movements after 10pm on 3/5/07 if the control item was a bath towel? I have seen nothing to confirm that 5A was provided with 5 clean towels on the Thursday.
4. In order to develop your Theory#1 perhaps the above anomalies should be ignored for the time being so we can reach the "what happened next?" part.
1. The statement translation has been altered from the one originally online (note the insertion of the street name which does not appear in the Portuguese version). The original translation also said the dog turned right at the end of the alleyway whereas the Portuguese version said left.Very sound reasoning misty.
(ETA previously posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg421504#msg421504)
2. The handler referred to an Aztec towel. I do not see why he would have mistaken a pink blanket for an Aztec towel.
3. Would you dispute that the scent could have been just as easily attributed to Gerry's known movements after 10pm on 3/5/07 if the control item was a bath towel? I have seen nothing to confirm that 5A was provided with 5 clean towels on the Thursday.
4. In order to develop your Theory#1 perhaps the above anomalies should be ignored for the time being so we can reach the "what happened next?" part.
I think the 'anomalies' are important, Misty, and should be retained as in your original post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg421504#msg421504 which I believe to be an important piece of information.
Proving in essence what we already knew ... that nothing on the internet is to be trusted when there is in my opinion an agenda in process of deleting and distorting information as proved by the research you have carried out here.
I think the 'anomalies' are important, Misty, and should be retained as in your original post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg421504#msg421504 which I believe to be an important piece of information.
Proving in essence what we already knew ... that nothing on the internet is to be trusted when there is in my opinion an agenda in process of deleting and distorting information as proved by the research you have carried out here.
I'd just really like to read reasons why a little girl, frightened by the sound of someone at her bedroom window, would head out into the darkness towards the source of her fear & then walk along dark pathways. What happened after that, unseen & unheard by the many people who were known to have been on or overlooking Rua Martins during the critical hour? The frequent presence of people on that street exceeds, by quite a level, that of anyone known to have been in the car park/street at the front of Block 5.
There's a really curious misrepresentation of information in the PJ files relating to a phone attributed to Murat - but that's another topic for another day.
Good point Brietta
Misty, I think it would be a good idea to save everything you have noticed onto a memory stick ... and take hard copies as well. By everything, I dont mean just the titles of the web pages, but ALL THE CONTENT too. Web pages suddenly disappear !
Too much that supports the Mccanns is being wiped off the internet. By extra-ordinarily powerful people ? My suspect group has strong ties to Silican Valley where all the internet / computer Big Boys are
It is sinister and creepy IMO
All in my honest opinion, based upon facts that I cannot reveal.
The madeleinemccann.org/blog that I linked to from my 2017 post no longer exists, so I'm glad I had copied the page onto here.
Dogsdontlie.com has also had all its content wiped, although it can be viewed via Wayback Machine. It was libellous, though. :)
I'm not fanatical enough to put any of this on a memory stick. My memory is fairly good when it comes to information I've read on the case - just not so good when it comes to everyday matters. There appear to be untoward issues relating to McCann-favourable IT content & certain unnamed US citizens but probably best we leave such matters to the experts.
BUMPED, sorry Misty that i posted after these, imo, important observations
Additionally, if she walked that dark pathway, why didn't she then take the route towards the light (street lamps).?
Why did she, a little girl on her own, take the dark route around the block and along UNLIT alleyways? It's quite a distance ... and in the dark all the way, I think
I dont believe that she walked the dark route
Children of Madeleine's age can be unpredictable. Only Kate & Gerry would have truly known how bold/timid/adventurous/easily scared Madeleine was at that time.
There is also a book called Burglar Bill. A Kindle edition suitable for 2-5yr olds was released in 2007. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CBN6B66/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
If that tale had recently been told to Madeleine, would she have feared being taken by a real-life Burglar Bill? (assuming he spoke English rather than Portuguese)
Believe it or not Misty ... I actually bought that book. I recognised the cover immediately.
1. The statement translation has been altered from the one originally online (note the insertion of the street name which does not appear in the Portuguese version). The original translation also said the dog turned right at the end of the alleyway whereas the Portuguese version said left.
(ETA previously posted here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg421504#msg421504)
2. The handler referred to an Aztec towel. I do not see why he would have mistaken a pink blanket for an Aztec towel.
3. Would you dispute that the scent could have been just as easily attributed to Gerry's known movements after 10pm on 3/5/07 if the control item was a bath towel? I have seen nothing to confirm that 5A was provided with 5 clean towels on the Thursday.
4. In order to develop your Theory#1 perhaps the above anomalies should be ignored for the time being so we can reach the "what happened next?" part.
When a picture paints a thousand words (OK, maybe 100 in this case).
Thank you for taking the time to post the diagram, but for the record I was aware of this diagram.
My original points were:
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”.
50m would place JT at around the entrance to Tapas bar i.e. the door where the tracker dog trail was lost.
The second point, which I did not make explicit enough, was that JT uses the word "along" as opposed to the word "across". This could be a Fredudian slip, but only in the sense that her subconscious mind leaked what she had seen, not a deliberate misleading statement or mistake.
If you take these two points, with my view that it is entirely possible JT was mistaken as to the timing of her sighting: i.e. the sighting occurred when she went to 'relieve' ROB, then the following scenario is a possibility:
1. The tracker dog trail ends around the door of the Tapas bar entrance.
2. A third party carried off MBM whilst walking up R. Francisco Gentil Martins.
3. As the third party approached the top of the road, JT exited the Tapas Bar to 'relieve' ROB.
4. JT saw the third party, at a distance of about 50m, who then crossed to the road.
I'm sure many will not agree this happened, and I cannot prove this happened, but it is not a completely unrealistic scenario.
Thank you for taking the time to post the diagram, but for the record I was aware of this diagram.
My original points were:
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”.
50m would place JT at around the entrance to Tapas bar i.e. the door where the tracker dog trail was lost.
The second point, which I did not make explicit enough, was that JT uses the word "along" as opposed to the word "across". This could be a Fredudian slip, but only in the sense that her subconscious mind leaked what she had seen, not a deliberate misleading statement or mistake.
If you take these two points, with my view that it is entirely possible JT was mistaken as to the timing of her sighting: i.e. the sighting occurred when she went to 'relieve' ROB, then the following scenario is a possibility:
1. The tracker dog trail ends around the door of the Tapas bar entrance.
2. A third party carried off MBM whilst walking up R. Francisco Gentil Martins.
3. As the third party approached the top of the road, JT exited the Tapas Bar to 'relieve' ROB.
4. JT saw the third party, at a distance of about 50m, who then crossed to the road.
I'm sure many will not agree this happened, and I cannot prove this happened, but it is not a completely unrealistic scenario.
"Jane Tanner is quite explicit in stating exactly where she was and I think her statement carries the weight of the fact she is witness to the event.
If you don't take her estimation of distance into consideration in my opinion any conclusion your theory may reach is flawed."
How far was JT from the corner when she first saw him?
"Just as I got to the top ... "That still doesn't mean they nearly bumped into each other. "4078 “Go on to tell me about that then as slowly as you can?”
She could not have seen him from any distance away (eg the tapas doorway) until hereached the junction prior to crossing the road.
"Just as I got to the top ... "
She could not have seen him from any distance away (eg the tapas doorway) until hereached the junction prior to crossing the road.
She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.
So how does that fit in with...Perfectly I would have thought, unless JT had previously made a claim to be able to see around corners.
Perfectly I would have thought, unless JT had previously made a claim to be able to see around corners.What Jane describes could be more or less accounted for if the person hesitated, that would allow her to see the man earlier (soon after passing Gerry and Jez) and then as she approached he stepped off the pavement and rapidly across the road.
Misty ... it is a theory, and is therefore capable of being disproved - personally I do not mind if it is disproved. Having said that I do not think you have passed a threshold to disprove the theory.
Point 1.
The translation does appear to be slightly weak - it is poor to add a street name without making it clear the translator has added additional clarification.
However, I have Google translated a section:
block 6 turns to the right and heads for the area of the adjacent car park, more concretely next to a light pole, smelling the floor of that place. after crossing the road again and heading for the entrance area of access to the resturants and swimming pool, smelling the door that was closed that hour.
Is there be any doubt about the location? Plus the translation, if anything, downplayed the description of the location of the door.
Point 2
The towel was supplied by the McCann family to locate MBM. I see no reason to believe this was flawed. I suspect it is the pink towel, but this cannot be proved or disproved.
Point 3
I would dispute this point, but am not an expert.
Point 4
It is ultimately unknown why the dogs lost the scent. If the tracker dog trail is MBM and the scent was lost at that point, it may indicate something happened at that location; there isn't a 100% certainty on this point, simply balance of probabilities. If something happened then realistically it would seem she was either carried off, or possibly involved in a RTA.
All IMO, and ultimately, it is simply a theory.
I do realise that it’s a theory but it would be helpful to know the threshold level acceptable to you for disproving this particular theory.
There is no doubt the S&R dogs tracked around Block 5, crossed the road & also showed interest at the locked Tapas Reception door. What is questionable is just whose scent they were following, given that Amaral claimed the pink blanket disappeared sometime after the first night.
Please explain your reasons for doubting Gerry’s scent may have been on the towel as he also walked the same route the tracking dogs followed.
I suspect the scent was lost in the car lot due to the open space, away from the walkways where scent molecules would have been deposited on the walls.
In your theory, would Madeleine have been taken away/run over by the same person who caused her to leave the apartment via the front door or another random individual who just happened to be passing, also unwitnessed?
Most hotels provide identical towels for all guests. I have never stayed in an Aparthotel, but I would have thought it similar
Most members of the family might well have kept their towels in the same bathroom. Very easy to get them mixed up if identical in colour and style.
The towel shown to the dogs may not have even been Madeleines?
If however, each childs towel was kept on/by their bed, then Madeleines towel could easily have been contaminated by the smell of an abductor. Did he /she wipe his/her sweaty hands on it ?
Thank you for taking the time to post the diagram, but for the record I was aware of this diagram.
My original points were:
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”.
50m would place JT at around the entrance to Tapas bar i.e. the door where the tracker dog trail was lost.
The second point, which I did not make explicit enough, was that JT uses the word "along" as opposed to the word "across". This could be a Fredudian slip, but only in the sense that her subconscious mind leaked what she had seen, not a deliberate misleading statement or mistake.
If you take these two points, with my view that it is entirely possible JT was mistaken as to the timing of her sighting: i.e. the sighting occurred when she went to 'relieve' ROB, then the following scenario is a possibility:
1. The tracker dog trail ends around the door of the Tapas bar entrance.
2. A third party carried off MBM whilst walking up R. Francisco Gentil Martins.
3. As the third party approached the top of the road, JT exited the Tapas Bar to 'relieve' ROB.
4. JT saw the third party, at a distance of about 50m, who then crossed to the road.
I'm sure many will not agree this happened, and I cannot prove this happened, but it is not a completely unrealistic scenario.
I know you are aware of the diagram but others who merely read the forum posts may not be.When Jane says where she was when she saw the man, it was well past the indentation in the building.
As far as ambiguous wording in JT's statement is concerned, perhaps it is best to hear the description of events directly from the witness in order to dispel any doubts.
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=67
I do realise that it’s a theory but it would be helpful to know the threshold level acceptable to you for disproving this particular theory.
There is no doubt the S&R dogs tracked around Block 5, crossed the road & also showed interest at the locked Tapas Reception door. What is questionable is just whose scent they were following, given that Amaral claimed the pink blanket disappeared sometime after the first night.
Please explain your reasons for doubting Gerry’s scent may have been on the towel as he also walked the same route the tracking dogs followed.
I suspect the scent was lost in the car lot due to the open space, away from the walkways where scent molecules would have been deposited on the walls.
In your theory, would Madeleine have been taken away/run over by the same person who caused her to leave the apartment via the front door or another random individual who just happened to be passing, also unwitnessed?
If the S&R team leader recants and withdraws his expert opinion that the trail was laid down by MBM then that would be sufficient to undermine the basis of the theory.Silva's opinion was based on the premise the control article only contained Madeleine's scent.
Silva's opinion was based on the premise the control article only contained Madeleine's scent.
How do you equate Silva's opinion with the expert opinion of Martin Grime on his cadaver dog alerts?
Why did the case coordinator, as an expert, seemingly ignore the former in favour of the latter?
It is a question of how the case coordinator weighed all the indications and evidence at his disposal. You would have to ask the case coordinator why he weighted the evidence in a particular way.
Reasonable people may disagree and come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Generally the first tier courts are the "fact finding" court - i.e. they determine the facts based on the evidence as they see it. This case has never gone to a criminal court, so the evidence has never been tested one way or the other.
I'm tempted to say "nicely swerved". However, on the basis of your last paragraph, do you think a Portuguese first tier court would
a) admit Grime's testimony on Eddie's alerts (even US courts don't always permit such evidence)
b) favour the opinion of one of their own experts rather than one from the UK
c) favour the opinion which supported the prosecution's case.
I can only speak for myself, and cannot give an opinion on what the Portuguese court would do. My opinion is that Grimes undermined his own evidence when he stated that the "cadaver" dog would respond to dried blood from a person who was still alive. He stated "They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."
OK, we won't turn this into yet another cadaver dog thread.
Turning to Silva's expert opinion, couldn't it also be undermined because he cannot state a specific time frame during which the scent trail was laid? Furthermore, S&R dogs are trained to track generic human scent in an open environment rather than a person-specific scent in an urban area. Do those facts not fall short of the standard required to develop Theory#1 beyond that stage?
There isn't any indication that Silva did not weigh up the capabilities of the dogs before giving his opinion.There is no door between the passageway and the pool area.
A consideration is that MBM is accepted to be bare footed; this leaves a strong trail in an urban environment, where, generally, there is no possibility of ground disturbance.
The route of the trail ending at the Tapas Bar is consistent with a route MBM may have taken if she wished to find her parents. I believe there is a door between the passageway and the pool area, which is locked at night.
Unless/until the case is solved it remains undetermined what happened to MBM, and all theories are open to being disproved.
There isn't any indication that Silva did not weigh up the capabilities of the dogs before giving his opinion.
A consideration is that MBM is accepted to be bare footed; this leaves a strong trail in an urban environment, where, generally, there is no possibility of ground disturbance.
The route of the trail ending at the Tapas Bar is consistent with a route MBM may have taken if she wished to find her parents. I believe there is a door between the passageway and the pool area, which is locked at night.
Unless/until the case is solved it remains undetermined what happened to MBM, and all theories are open to being disproved.
Thank you for taking the time to post the diagram, but for the record I was aware of this diagram.
My original points were:
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”.
50m would place JT at around the entrance to Tapas bar i.e. the door where the tracker dog trail was lost.
The second point, which I did not make explicit enough, was that JT uses the word "along" as opposed to the word "across". This could be a Fredudian slip, but only in the sense that her subconscious mind leaked what she had seen, not a deliberate misleading statement or mistake.
If you take these two points, with my view that it is entirely possible JT was mistaken as to the timing of her sighting: i.e. the sighting occurred when she went to 'relieve' ROB, then the following scenario is a possibility:
1. The tracker dog trail ends around the door of the Tapas bar entrance.
2. A third party carried off MBM whilst walking up R. Francisco Gentil Martins.
3. As the third party approached the top of the road, JT exited the Tapas Bar to 'relieve' ROB.
4. JT saw the third party, at a distance of about 50m, who then crossed to the road.
I'm sure many will not agree this happened, and I cannot prove this happened, but it is not a completely unrealistic scenario.
Perhaps we could then move on to the part of the theory which deals with Madeleine leaving by the front door & why it was closed behind her.
There is no door between the passageway and the pool area.
There isn't any indication that Silva did not weigh up the capabilities of the dogs before giving his opinion.
A consideration is that MBM is accepted to be bare footed; this leaves a strong trail in an urban environment, where, generally, there is no possibility of ground disturbance.
The route of the trail ending at the Tapas Bar is consistent with a route MBM may have taken if she wished to find her parents. I believe there is a door between the passageway and the pool area, which is locked at night.
Unless/until the case is solved it remains undetermined what happened to MBM, and all theories are open to being disproved.
There isn't any indication that Silva did not weigh up the capabilities of the dogs before giving his opinion.
A consideration is that MBM is accepted to be bare footed; this leaves a strong trail in an urban environment, where, generally, there is no possibility of ground disturbance.
The route of the trail ending at the Tapas Bar is consistent with a route MBM may have taken if she wished to find her parents. I believe there is a door between the passageway and the pool area, which is locked at night.
Unless/until the case is solved it remains undetermined what happened to MBM, and all theories are open to being disproved.
There is no door between the passageway and the pool area.Unless the door being spoken of is the door at secondary reception
I think you have your facts wrong here "The route of the trail ending at the Tapas Bar is consistent with a route MBM may have taken if she wished to find her parents. I believe there is a door between the passageway and the pool area, which is locked at night."
Please explain.
In the post I was referring to the trail ending at the secondary reception that leads to the pool area and Tapas Bar. I was sloppy with the language, and I have corrected that in the post.I wonder why that door was not opened for the dog search team.
Unfortunately I believed I had read a comment that there was another entrance from the passageway - a short cut. Obviously this is incorrect.
There is clearly only one entrance, and that is the one I believe was referred to in the report by the dog team.
Re. 1 : The dogs trail actually ends at the locked door to the Tapas area. The actual Tapas bar is a further crow flies 48 metres into the OC gardens. Sorry to be picky but I think that detail could be very important
Re. 2 : As pointed out earlier, the 50 metres quoted is way out and furthermore rediculous because no one could have seen the detail that Jane saw from 50 metres distant along a poorly lit road.
Elsewhere in PJ reports you will find that Jane was thought to have been only about 5 metres from the man (Tannerman) carrying the little girl
Assuming the front door was shut, and that checking the status of the front door was not overlooked in the all the confusion at the time, then the most likely option would be that it blew shut IMO. The night was breezy, according to witnesses, and the Patio door could be the source of the draft. I'm not aware of any absolute proof this scenario could not have happened.
Due to direction in which the door opened, i.e. clockwise inwards, & its close proximity to the hallway wall situated on the opening side, wouldn't Madeleine have had to open it to at least 25-30° to exit? Factor in the northerly wind against the direction of the door closing, how would the airflow work with sufficient force to slam the door?There is a a lot of logic in what you say there Misty. Thanks for clearing that up.
There is a a lot of logic in what you say there Misty. Thanks for clearing that up.
Physics isn't a strong point of mine, Rob, so if anyone can explain how the door could have slammed shut behind Madeleine I'm happy to accept a scientific explanation. (Cue Alice.......)It might be a different story in the daytime if there was a sea breeze.
It might be a different story in the daytime if there was a sea breeze.
Physics isn't a strong point of mine, Rob, so if anyone can explain how the door could have slammed shut behind Madeleine I'm happy to accept a scientific explanation. (Cue Alice.......)
Don't encourage me!.LOL - we can keep dreaming. It didn't do Sonia's buddy much good, though.
The door slammed shut because a force was applied to it sufficient to overcome friction and generate sufficient momentum to operate the latch.
Cutting to the chase the mechanics is easy enough, the difficult bit is determining all the true variable conditions that obtained at the precise time and location which produced that force.
If we could determine those we would not be sitting here discussing it at some nebulous level as with that skill,by now, we would all have predicted winning lottery numbers and be loafing on our very own island paradises.
Don't encourage me!.
The door slammed shut because a force was applied to it sufficient to overcome friction and generate sufficient momentum to operate the latch.
-snip-
LOL - we can keep dreaming. It didn't do Sonia's buddy much good, though.Less likely misty. The door would have been MORE DIFFICULT to close and Madeleine did not have a lot of weight to produce the necessary forces to close the door. IMO
If the bedroom window was open & the patio door ajar, would that make an open front door more or less likely to slam shut when the patio door was opened wider to allow access, using the known wind-speed & direction?
Don't encourage me!.
The door slammed shut because a force was applied to it sufficient to overcome friction and generate sufficient momentum to operate the latch.
Cutting to the chase the mechanics is easy enough, the difficult bit is determining all the true variable conditions that obtained at the precise time and location which produced that force.
If we could determine those we would not be sitting here discussing it at some nebulous level as with that skill,by now, we would all have predicted winning lottery numbers and be loafing on our very own island paradises.
LOL - we can keep dreaming. It didn't do Sonia's buddy much good, though.
If the bedroom window was open & the patio door ajar, would that make an open front door more or less likely to slam shut when the patio door was opened wider to allow access, using the known wind-speed & direction?
Is the wind direction known with absolute certainty, from local weather stations? Do you have the data? I not sure how easy it would be to be certain of how the various wind conditions near the coast would interact.So true.
Is the wind direction known with absolute certainty, from local weather stations? Do you have the data? I not sure how easy it would be to be certain of how the various wind conditions near the coast would interact.Indeed!
Less likely misty. The door would have been MORE DIFFICULT to close and Madeleine did not have a lot of weight to produce the necessary forces to close the door. IMO
Let us not forget that both the sitting room and the parents bedroom would have heated up noticeably during the day. I wonder were the sitting room windows left ajar a little to cool the place down?
And did The parents, perchance, leave their patio windows a little open to cool the place down?
No Air Con. Very difficult to sleep in a hot bedroom ?
LOL - we can keep dreaming. It didn't do Sonia's buddy much good, though.
If the bedroom window was open & the patio door ajar, would that make an open front door more or less likely to slam shut when the patio door was opened wider to allow access, using the known wind-speed & direction?
What were they then?.
I am sure Sadie will be only too happy to plot it all out for you.
What were they then?.
I am sure Sadie will be only too happy to plot it all out for you.
Prevailing wind May in Luz NNW 337°
https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/praia_da_luz
Screenshot of weather conditions recorded from nearest weather station below.
Taking into consideration
a) the front door is on the easterly of the north-facing side of the block & set in a recess at the end of a potential wind tunnel
b) the patio door is on the south-facing side, protected in a recess on the patio by an adjacent wall & a balcony overhead
c) the bedroom window beside the front door was open (for the purpose of this theory)
are any of my learned friends/adversaries able to state the probability of the front door slamming shut behind Madeleine?
b) the patio door is on the south
The website itself states:Air pressure would be a major contribution. I couldn't find any YouTube site that discussed the physics of a slamming door.
"Statistics based on observations taken between 06/2013 - 02/2017 daily from 7am to 7pm local time."
and
"Dominant wind direction"
and
"The wind statistics are based on real observations from the weather station at Praia da Luz."
===
Is the screenshot the raw data? It does not look like raw data - I would like see the actual raw observation data that was used to generate the statistics, before drawing any firm conclusions.
If the raw data shows that there are sufficient observations to be reasonably accurate, and the weather station is reliable (a lot of these statistics appear to come from amateur locations) then that would be a question mark over whether the door slammed.
It does not take much of a breeze to slam a door. Once the door starts accelerating under the application of a force it is building up speed, which increases momentum.
Air pressure would be a major contribution.
Perhaps.
Wind shadow effects are another factor, and cross ventilation effects within the apartment 5A could also have been a factor, given the open window.
Which may be seen in the night time photograph showing the curtains billowing outward at the patio door from a landward direction.
Any one who's interested in research of the weather, maybe the below link will help interesting read.Wow. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands.
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-pool-photo-refuses-to-go-away.html
Agreed. That is likely showing a through draft at the instant in time the photograph is taken, when the patio doors are visibly, and therefore provably, open.The apartment block is in an elevated position above the sea, and night time breeze blowing down towards the sea would in my opinion be capable of causing the effect witnessed and described by Kate at the bedroom window.
Cross ventilation effects are not universally straight through, they can double back on themselves.
Wind shadow effects in urban areas could also impact the situation at a micro level.
On a breezy night, with sources of ventilation, I do not see how the front door slamming can be definitively ruled out as a possibility.
Wow. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands.
yes but isn't one of the conclusions based on cloud formations or some such that the Last Photo proves Madeleine died on 29th April? Pardon me if I don't treat this as a serious body of research.
They certainly have, a lot of discussion - on wind temp etc etc.
At a glance seem the link - just about covers everything.
From someone who has done his research, with not only the time but also the knowledge.
yes but isn't one of the conclusions based on cloud formations or some such that the Last Photo proves Madeleine died on 29th April? Pardon me if I don't treat this as a serious body of research.
The apartment block is in an elevated position above the sea, and night time breeze blowing down towards the sea would in my opinion be capable of causing the effect witnessed and described by Kate at the bedroom window.
Like the blowing door curtain in the crime scene photograph it may have been momentary either due to a sudden gust or as you detailed earlier due to a particular circumstance or set of circumstances within.
The bedroom door slammed shut in the breeze but I don't think the front door would as it is hung to close in the opposite direction from that indicated by the action of the curtains.
In my opinion to slam the front door would require a gust coming from the sea with the effect on the curtains being ... billowing out of the window ... and billowing into the room from the patio door.
A perfectly valid opinion, but I don't really agree with the last paragraph.Not as impossible as pushing a large boulder up an icy mountain!
Obviously it is necessary to overcome the static friction to get the door moving, but once the door is moving then it can slam pretty easily, IMO, especially with a source of airflow.
Is it completely impossible that MBM left via the front door, pulled it behind her and thereby overcame the static friction, then air flow and pressure differential finished the job? (rhetorical question)
A perfectly valid opinion, but I don't really agree with the last paragraph.IMO no, because I believe you needed a key to close the door from the outside.
Obviously it is necessary to overcome the static friction to get the door moving, but once the door is moving then it can slam pretty easily, IMO, especially with a source of airflow.
Is it completely impossible that MBM left via the front door, pulled it behind her and thereby overcame the static friction, then air flow and pressure differential finished the job? (rhetorical question)
Prevailing wind May in Luz NNW 337°Re the screenshot. If anyone can produce a link to similar data for 4 May 2007, that could be cross-checked against the various photos and video we have for that date. We would then have some test of its accuracy.
https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/praia_da_luz
Screenshot of weather conditions recorded from nearest weather station below.
Taking into consideration
a) the front door is on the easterly of the north-facing side of the block & set in a recess at the end of a potential wind tunnel
b) the patio door is on the south-facing side, protected in a recess on the patio by an adjacent wall & a balcony overhead
c) the bedroom window beside the front door was open (for the purpose of this theory)
are any of my learned friends/adversaries able to state the probability of the front door slamming shut behind Madeleine?
b) the patio door is on the south
Not as impossible as pushing a large boulder up an icy mountain!
Moving on from that, in your theory of an interrupted burglary, what would Madeleine's reasons have possibly been to exit via the front door, without her shoes which were pictured in the hall area, towards the source of the disturbance?
Prevailing wind May in Luz NNW 337°
https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/praia_da_luz
Screenshot of weather conditions recorded from nearest weather station below.
Taking into consideration
a) the front door is on the easterly of the north-facing side of the block & set in a recess at the end of a potential wind tunnel
b) the patio door is on the south-facing side, protected in a recess on the patio by an adjacent wall & a balcony overhead
c) the bedroom window beside the front door was open (for the purpose of this theory)
are any of my learned friends/adversaries able to state the probability of the front door slamming shut behind Madeleine?
b) the patio door is on the south
Agreed. That is likely showing a through draft at the instant in time the photograph is taken, when the patio doors are visibly, and therefore provably, open.
Cross ventilation effects are not universally straight through, they can double back on themselves.
Wind shadow effects in urban areas could also impact the situation at a micro level.
On a breezy night, with sources of ventilation, I do not see how the front door slamming can be definitively ruled out as a possibility.
The apartment block is in an elevated position above the sea, and night time breeze blowing down towards the sea would in my opinion be capable of causing the effect witnessed and described by Kate at the bedroom window.
Like the blowing door curtain in the crime scene photograph it may have been momentary either due to a sudden gust or as you detailed earlier due to a particular circumstance or set of circumstances within.
The bedroom door slammed shut in the breeze but I don't think the front door would as it is hung to close in the opposite direction from that indicated by the action of the curtains.
In my opinion to slam the front door would require a gust coming from the sea with the effect on the curtains being ... billowing out of the window ... and billowing into the room from the patio door.
Our grannies knew the answer to that question, near enough [seriously!].
Is the patio door open or closed?
Patio door was ajar but had been opened on 2 occasions when Matt & Kate entered to check on the children.And Kate went back to see that she hadn't left the door open after the bedroom door slammed. So she is aware of the causes and solutions.
And Kate went back to see that she hadn't left the door open after the bedroom door slammed. So she is aware of the causes and solutions.
Kate would not have anticipated the bedroom window could have been wide open behind the curtains.At what stage are you talking about? When she first entered the apartment, or immediately when the bedroom door slammed? She started going through a type of checklist. Step 1. check the door she had just gone through, then Step 2. check the room.
Patio door was ajar but had been opened on 2 occasions when Matt & Kate entered to check on the children.
At what stage are you talking about? When she first entered the apartment, or immediately when the bedroom door slammed? She started going through a type of checklist. Step 1. check the door she had just gone through, then Step 2. check the room.What air conditioner?
Once she entered the room looking for the source of the air current she might have a differential diagnoses list.
a. Open window
b. Air from the air conditioner.
c. Poltergeist even.
(It was surprising how often on You Tube when doors slam shut that people put that down to some sort of haunting.)
What air conditioner?That is a question Kate would have to go through (there is some sort of vent in the kids room).
That is a question Kate would have to go through (there is some sort of vent in the kids room).Is there an air conditioning unit visible in any of the incident photos? Is there an extraction unit visible anywhere on the exterior of 5A?
So are we considering a problem within these limits ?:[including but not limited to]Correction.
1) Meteoroligical conditions as recorded at some unspecified airfield [ possibly up to 30 klicks away. Some keen type paid 80 euros for that print out....gosh].
2) The front door is shut.
3) An adjacent window and associated shutter, in the same building elevation as the front door, is open but the dimensions of the aperture are unknown.
4) The patio door is open but but the dimensions of the aperture are unknown.
5) The dimensions of the front door are unknown.
6) The mass of the front door is unknown.
7) The door hinge materials of construction are unknown therefore mu is unknown.
We ain't gonna become fat on that lot but we could have a bit of fun chucking typical numbers about to arrive at a sense check. The skellington in the cupboard* is the pesky patio door and its unknown attitude.
Going on "nod in" my opinion is that one would be hard pressed to come up with a conclusive argument one way or another i.e there is no single right answer.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxwoqPY834c 8(>((
At what stage are you talking about? When she first entered the apartment, or immediately when the bedroom door slammed? She started going through a type of checklist. Step 1. check the door she had just gone through, then Step 2. check the room.
Once she entered the room looking for the source of the air current she might have a differential diagnoses list.
a. Open window
b. Air from the air conditioner.
c. Poltergeist even.
(It was surprising how often on You Tube when doors slam shut that people put that down to some sort of haunting.)
I think you have your facts wrong here "The route of the trail ending at the Tapas Bar is consistent with a route MBM may have taken if she wished to find her parents. I believe there is a door between the passageway and the pool area, which is locked at night."
Please explain.
I don't think that there is ANY door between the passageway and the pool area, Rob.I didn't see a door either. I'll put it on the list of things to check.
The whole complex is built into a hill side with a moderately steep walk up from the Tapas area to the apartments. The whole Tapas area is flat and horizontal. The Passageway /pathway is pretty horizontal and a fair deal higher than the flat Tapas area .
Í have memories of a fairly high vertical wall between the two. I dont think that there is any entrance from that passageway into the Tapas gardens.
I feel sure that there are photos and videos illustrating from the Tapas area this difference in levels.
I haven't the energy to look for these photos/ videos and am totally willing to be proven
wrong. It is a long time since I was there.
I didn't see a door either. I'll put it on the list of things to check.
I've already posted that there is no alternative door. It was a mistaken interpretation of a comment in a document.Either way I'm going to check for myself.
SIL has confirmed there is no alternative short cut entrance from the passageway.
Correction.
2. The front door is open to an unknown angle.
Not to worry, Alice. If the skeleton had been found in the cupboard we could argue over how it got there & the contents of the autopsy report.
It's just trying to piece together a sequence of questionable events to reach the conclusion defined in the OP theory. At least this gives you the opportunity to link to backing music of your choice.
The following link gives an indication of some of the possibilities for wind flow in a building:
https://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/buildings/wind-ventilation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143285/
4.1.1. Wind pressure
When wind strikes a building, it induces a positive pressure on the windward face and negative pressure on the leeward face. This drives the air to flow through windward openings into the building to the low-pressure openings at the leeward face (see Figure 4.1). It is possible to estimate the wind pressures for simple buildings. Wind flows around buildings are complex and the subject of a number of textbooks, for example Aynsley, Melbourne & Vickery (1977) and Liu (1991).
Well I'm still not convinced as there were 2 openings on the windward side & one on the leeward side of 5A. Coupled with the fact that the wind did not enter at 90°, thus reducing its force, & 2 of the openings had curtains across them, I consider the front door would have had been the optimum opening for wind pressure.Only if the front door was open Misty.
Can we move on to the reasons why Madeleine would have exited by the front door, please?
Well I'm still not convinced as there were 2 openings on the windward side & one on the leeward side of 5A. Coupled with the fact that the wind did not enter at 90°, thus reducing its force, & 2 of the openings had curtains across them, I consider the front door would have had been the optimum opening for wind pressure.
Can we move on to the reasons why Madeleine would have exited by the front door, please?
If you ever obtain raw data from Praia da Luz we can analyse it by assigning the observations to bins based on the compass sectors. By that method the variability of the wind direction will be clear.
Otherwise it like saying the average person is 1.8m tall without providing a standard deviation to allow someone to assess the spread.
If you ever obtain raw data from Praia da Luz we can analyse it by assigning the observations to bins based on the compass sectors. By that method the variability of the wind direction will be clear.She can't exit both doors at once, so you have to think like as kid and understand why she would choose one door over the other.
Otherwise it like saying the average person is 1.8m tall without providing a standard deviation to allow someone to assess the spread.
Moving on. I have suggested a possible reason that MBM may have left the apartment was to find her parents; it is not possible to be certain either way on this point IMO.
She can't exit both doors at once, so you have to think like as kid and understand why she would choose one door over the other.
Yes, if she was disturbed by someone fiddling with the bedroom window then she is hardly likely to try ans exit by the door adjacent to that windowWell that is right. So can you accept that even though the opening of the shutters and window may have woken Madeleine, I think you have to be awake to become conscious of direction of sound. So the alleged burglars may have stopped once it was note Madeleine woke. So in this scenario she has woken unaware of where the sound has come from.
Well that is right. So can you accept that even though the opening of the shutters and window may have woken Madeleine, I think you have to be awake to become conscious of direction of sound. So the alleged burglars may have stopped once it was note Madeleine woke. So in this scenario she has woken unaware of where the sound has come from.
No, I think the burglar stuff is just a load of guff.The point of discussing possibilities is not to dismiss them like that.
If you ever obtain raw data from Praia da Luz we can analyse it by assigning the observations to bins based on the compass sectors. By that method the variability of the wind direction will be clear.
Otherwise it like saying the average person is 1.8m tall without providing a standard deviation to allow someone to assess the spread.
Moving on. I have suggested a possible reason that MBM may have left the apartment was to find her parents; it is not possible to be certain either way on this point IMO.
The point of discussing possibilities is not to dismiss them like that.
She can't exit both doors at once, so you have to think like as kid and understand why she would choose one door over the other.
The Met clearly didn't dismiss the possibility out of hand, borne out by the references to previous local burglaries in the vicinity & the re-questioning of 3 locals who presumably had criminal records for such offences. IIRC a burglary gone wrong was also suggested by the UK police officers to the PJ quite early on in the first investigation.But what if someone else came to the patio door, presumably to look out for the kids. There had been visitors reported the night before so we can't dismiss the same couple interfering again.
IMO there would have been a few steps prior to Madeleine having to make that choice.
Assuming that she was both disturbed & frightened by a noise at the window, I think she would have first called out for her parents. When they failed to respond, the next step would be to go to the lounge & their bedroom. Only after discovering that neither Kate nor Gerry were in the apartment would she have had to choose which door to exit if she was intent on seeking them out. Was her decision made with a fearful or calm mind?
The front door was the easiest for Madeleine to access as it wasn't covered by a long curtain but it also led in the direction of the disturbance & darkness.
The point of discussing possibilities is not to dismiss them like that.
ot when I consider it a waste of time.
But what if someone else came to the patio door, presumably to look out for the kids. There had been visitors reported the night before so we can't dismiss the same couple interfering again.
I have never seen anything to substantiate that "report". I can't now remember where that originated, quite possibly from some forum or other.No wasn't this point raised by the McCanns themselves?
The Met clearly didn't dismiss the possibility out of hand, borne out by the references to previous local burglaries in the vicinity & the re-questioning of 3 locals who presumably had criminal records for such offences. IIRC a burglary gone wrong was also suggested by the UK police officers to the PJ quite early on in the first investigation.
IMO there would have been a few steps prior to Madeleine having to make that choice.
Assuming that she was both disturbed & frightened by a noise at the window, I think she would have first called out for her parents. When they failed to respond, the next step would be to go to the lounge & their bedroom. Only after discovering that neither Kate nor Gerry were in the apartment would she have had to choose which door to exit if she was intent on seeking them out. Was her decision made with a fearful or calm mind?
The front door was the easiest for Madeleine to access as it wasn't covered by a long curtain but it also led in the direction of the disturbance & darkness.
It is difficult to say. It may depend on whether she was woken up immediately, or there was a delay. Assuming the burglar (and as you say this is based on the OG theory) saw the cots and, presumably, the sleeping children it is plausible that they would abort the attempt to break in.
There is no certainty MBM woke immediately or, really, realsied what had happened. If there was a delay or the breeze/cold woke her then would it be obvious to 4 year old what had happened?
As Alice said it is not too easy to see into the mind of a 4 year old and understand how they may perceive events, or how they may decide to act.
Overall, I'm not sure it is certain there would have been 'flight' response - she may have simply been confused, especially if there was a delay before she woke up.
In this situation the front door seems as good a choice as any other - ultimately the choice may have been fairly arbitrary.
This particular little girl was rewarded for not leaving her bed if she woke up. I can accept that she may have done so if frightened by a disturbance at the window. What's more difficult to accept is that she didn't seek out her comforter before making the decision to exit the apartment and/or sitting & crying for a while.As a child woken in the middle of the night would you have answered the door to some voice other than your own parents? I don't think I would have done that.
If you use the tracker dogs' route as evidence Madeleine wandered via the front door, it's necessary to believe that this scared child chose to go down 2 dark alleyways in search of her parents rather than either going to one of the other apartments or towards the light on the main road. However unpredictable young children's behaviour may be, somehow I don't buy into the idea Madeleine made a conscious decision to follow the route between Blocks 4 & 5.
However, if a hypothetical burglar knocked on the front door after attempting to open the window, there is a possibility Madeleine may have chosen to open the door if asked to do so (in English).
As a child woken in the middle of the night would you have answered the door to some voice other than your own parents? I don't think I would have done that.
That would depend very much on what the person said & whether she had already ascertained her parents were nowhere to be seen. Perhaps look up cases where young children have answered the door to intruders (I don't have time right now).I'm not saying it is impossible or it never happens. I'm asking what you would have done as a child.
This particular little girl was rewarded for not leaving her bed if she woke up. I can accept that she may have done so if frightened by a disturbance at the window. What's more difficult to accept is that she didn't seek out her comforter before making the decision to exit the apartment and/or sitting & crying for a while.
If you use the tracker dogs' route as evidence Madeleine wandered via the front door, it's necessary to believe that this scared child chose to go down 2 dark alleyways in search of her parents rather than either going to one of the other apartments or towards the light on the main road. However unpredictable young children's behaviour may be, somehow I don't buy into the idea Madeleine made a conscious decision to follow the route between Blocks 4 & 5.
However, if a hypothetical burglar knocked on the front door after attempting to open the window, there is a possibility Madeleine may have chosen to open the door if asked to do so (in English).
I'm not saying it is impossible or it never happens. I'm asking what you would have done as a child.
Madeleine had awoke and left her room on that holiday according to the McCanns because of crying so I would discard your first sentence. She may have done it again if she was in bed of course.
"She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Fair point, can't argue with that - but for this theory Madeleine was in her bed, very much alive. The disturbance on the Tuesday was from a known origin.Known?
Known?
Amelie was crying. Madeleine knew who & what had disturbed her.
Crikey.
Are you going to share ?
Amelie was crying. Madeleine knew who & what had disturbed her.Was this before or after the parents arrived home?
Was this before or after the parents arrived home?