So what are the various scenarios available to us?

[AnneGuedes]

With respect I disagree Anne for the very simple reason is that a child will go to the light and not the dark.  There was a light on in the lounge and there would have been light coming in the patio door.  There would also be sound coming from that direction.

With respect, John (aren't you always respectful ?)... I disagree. I don't think Madeleine would have taken the risk to fall, steps in the darkness with tricky safety barrier.
On the other side, the corridor had permanent lights, the ground was smooth (tiles ?) and the wall separating the corridor from the car park provided some kind of protection : it wasn't as if she had left home.

[John]

With respect, John (aren't you always respectful ?)... I disagree. I don't think Madeleine would have taken the risk to fall, steps in the darkness with tricky safety barrier.
On the other side, the corridor had permanent lights, the ground was smooth (tiles ?) and the wall separating the corridor from the car park provided some kind of protection : it wasn't as if she had left home.

I agree about the steps.  If she had even ventured out into the patio I have no doubt she would have bawled her head off!  She didn't.

[DCI]

With respect I disagree Anne for the very simple reason is that a child will go to the light and not the dark.  There was a light on in the lounge and there would have been light coming in the patio door.  There would also be sound coming from that direction.

Mrs Fenn, would have heard the patio doors open too, surely?

[stephen25000]

My observation would be that if it was a set-up then the McCanns would have locked the patio door.  Evidence is that they didn't.  Additionally if it was their intention to attribute the blame to a third person in a situation with an unlocked patio door then finding the door ajar or open would have been the ideal scenario.  Again it wasn't.

The evidence is that Madeleine was an intelligent youngster.  Consequently there is no reason to suspect she was anything less than street savvy.

The dog alerts are meaningless as the entire exercise was a charade.  Grime himself admits that without positive forensic evidence the dogs might as well never have been there.

We can debate the locked/unlocked doors til the cows come home.

Do we have irrefutable evidence that on that night the doors, either of them were unlocked, or are we relying solely on the Mccanns say do ?

Secondly, I have been teaching for several decades and I have yet to see a 3 year old who is road savvy. Young children are very impulsive and do not react as an adult would.

As to the dog alerts, no debate on that, the D.N.A. ANALYSIS  was inconclusive, but as an ex copper how many times did you investigate cases where not enough evidence was available to charge someone, but your experience and knowledge indicated otherwise ?

The PJ did not initially investigate the Mccanns, until UK police pointed in their direction.

[John]

We can debate the locked/unlocked doors til the cows come home.

Do we have irrefutable evidence that on that night the doors, either of them were unlocked, or are we relying solely on the Mccanns say do ?

Secondly, I have been teaching for several decades and I have yet to see a 3 year old who is road savvy. Young children are very impulsive and do not react as an adult would.

As to the dog alerts, no debate on that, the D.N.A. ANALYSIS  was inconclusive, but as an ex copper how many times did you investigate cases where not enough evidence was available to charge someone, but your experience and knowledge indicated otherwise ?

The PJ did not initially investigate the Mccanns, until UK police pointed in their direction.

She was almost 4 and highly intelligent, a big difference. 

[stephen25000]

She was almost 4 and highly intelligent, a big difference.

I am sorry John, but that is a banal answer.

A 3 or 4 year old will not have much street sense.

Would you let a 3/4 year old out by themselves ?

[Redblossom]

From 5.50 on here, the woke and wandered theory is explored by experienced British detectives

[faithlilly]

You'll find the transcript for the programme on the link below :

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id49.html

[icabodcrane]

You'll find the transcript for the programme on the link below :

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id49.html

I'd never seen this programme before, and it really is very interesting

The approach taken by the experts  (  and their credentials are unquestionable )  is methodical and rational,  and well worth considering 

[faithlilly]

I'd never seen this programme before, and it really is very interesting

The approach taken by the experts  (  and their credentials are unquestionable )  is methodical and rational,  and well worth considering

It's interesting to see that they themselves suggest that a body could have been hidden in a bin and then been transported to a local landfill site.

[Eleanor]

Interesting video, but well out of date now.  It was rational, but lacking in evidence that is now available.
I think I was most interested in why someone would take a child of Madeleine's age, which would be unlikely for predatory sexual reasons.
I shall go on hoping.

[John]

I am sorry John, but that is a banal answer.

A 3 or 4 year old will not have much street sense.

Would you let a 3/4 year old out by themselves ?

Banal?   I thought it was very much to the point.

Madeleine was a precocious child who was just a few days from her 4th birthday.  She was quite capable of opening the patio door should she have chosen to do so. The lights and noises emanating from the tapas would have attracted her attention.

Street savvy or otherwise, this was never an issue.

[stephen25000]

Banal?   I thought it was very much to the point.

Madeleine was a precocious child who was just a few days from her 4th birthday.  She was quite capable of opening the patio door should she have chosen to do so. The lights and noises emanating from the tapas would have attracted her attention.

Street savvy or otherwise, this was never an issue.

Sorry John, we may be talking at cross purposes.

I'm sure Madeleine was more than capable of opening doors.

Now if she did get out at some point prior to that evening.........................

[John]

For me the idea that some abductor went to all the trouble to take Madeleine and then carry her all over town in full view of every passer before depositing her in some trolley bin is so preposterous so as to be a non starter.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sadie Says on June 22, 2013
Bundleman, presumably expecting a get-away driver and pick up on Jane Tanner corner, left OC via the car park entrance (centre foreground) and walked to the left (easterly direction).   Jane Tanner came up the road from the right.  Upon seeing Jane Tanner, Bundleman carried on walking straight across the road in front of him.  He was well illuminated all the way. 

Sadie,

Another question about bundleman:

Can we be so sure that he saw Jane Tanner?

I have little doubt that Jane saw him. She didn't get a perfect look at him - it was dark (aside from the street light from the lamp on the corner); he was some distance  away; he was moving briskly; he did not turn his face toward her. But she saw him.

Now let's look at it from Bundleman's perspective. He was walking briskly;  Jane was unilluminated; Jane was not only some distance away, but to his side - and he did not turn his head.

Further, Jane had the benefit of seeing him walk in front of her, right across her path, and as you say, she would be sensitive to male presence. 

But would bundleman catch her out of the corner of his eye, many metres down a dark road to his side, when any turn of the head or unnecessary physical gesture could draw fatal attention?

I'm not so sure..

Could he have seen her from inside the patio doors before leaving the apartment, as he perhaps saw Gerry and Jez if he had checked that entrance/exit before leaving from the front? Would Jane have exited the OC entrance by that point? Probably not. And if she had, and he had seen her then,  wouldn't he have waited for her to pass before he left the apartment?

Jane was also on the west side of the street, yes?  After a couple of strides, when he stood down from the kerb as he began to cross the road, she would be 'behind' him, making it even less likely he would see her. She was nowhere in his line of vision.

Just some more thoughts....