Slarti's Simple Solution.

[Carana]

Because they were the main protagonists in the "train" ?

"The best solutions are often the most difficult to find, not
because they are hiding but because we don’t bother to look for them".

Sorry, I still don't get it.

You can use a stopwatch to observe the T9 re-enacting arriving at the Tapas restaurant and going back and forth over the course of the evening.

How are the T9 suppoed to remember how fast they were walking at the time? Not just a year later, but even later for all those who insist that a "reconstruction" would have reopened the case years later?

And a "reconstruction" timeline without any of the other witnesses, e.g., Tapas staff or other holidaymakers? How does that work?

What makes sense to me (although possibly not to others) is to see if the sequence makes sense and to establish whether there were indeed windows of opportunity for an abductor to have nipped in and out without anyone noticing. There were, but the timeline would never be able to narrow it down to a specific short gap given that people on holiday weren't using a stopwatch at the time. I don't see how a physical or virtual reconstruction would resolve that to within a couple of minutes.

If there had been NO windows of opportunity, then there would be some serious questions to answer.

[slartibartfast]

Sorry, I still don't get it.

You can use a stopwatch to observe the T9 re-enacting arriving at the Tapas restaurant and going back and forth over the course of the evening.

How are the T9 suppoed to remember how fast they were walking at the time? Not just a year later, but even later for all those who insist that a "reconstruction" would have reopened the case years later?

And a "reconstruction" timeline without any of the other witnesses, e.g., Tapas staff or other holidaymakers? How does that work?

What makes sense to me (although possibly not to others) is to see if the sequence makes sense and to establish whether there were indeed windows of opportunity for an abductor to have nipped in and out without anyone noticing. There were, but the timeline would never be able to narrow it down to a specific short gap given that people on holiday weren't using a stopwatch at the time. I don't see how a physical or virtual reconstruction would resolve that to within a couple of minutes.

If there had been NO windows of opportunity, then there would be some serious questions to answer.

So you think your final paragraph is the reason they didn't do it?

[Alice Purjorick]

Sorry, I still don't get it.

You can use a stopwatch to observe the T9 re-enacting arriving at the Tapas restaurant and going back and forth over the course of the evening.

How are the T9 suppoed to remember how fast they were walking at the time? Not just a year later, but even later for all those who insist that a "reconstruction" would have reopened the case years later?

And a "reconstruction" timeline without any of the other witnesses, e.g., Tapas staff or other holidaymakers? How does that work?

What makes sense to me (although possibly not to others) is to see if the sequence makes sense and to establish whether there were indeed windows of opportunity for an abductor to have nipped in and out without anyone noticing. There were, but the timeline would never be able to narrow it down to a specific short gap given that people on holiday weren't using a stopwatch at the time. I don't see how a physical or virtual reconstruction would resolve that to within a couple of minutes.

If there had been NO windows of opportunity, then there would be some serious questions to answer.

You say you don't get it then go right ahead and prove you do.
I don't think it's a case of just nip in though. He will be exposed ('scuse the expression) from the time he is within sight of OC reception until out of sight of it having done the job in between. I envisage him going in for neither split arse timing nor faffing about with windows and shutters.

Red bit:
Taking Jane Tanner as an example (note! not picking on her):
From given statements using earliest time and latest time, potentially she was away from the table for 20 minutes, left 21:10 returned 21:30, jumping a number for walking time there and back of about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes what was happening in the other 17 minutes and indeed was it 17 minutes because using latest time and earliest time it was only 5 minutes absence with the same walking time. The latter looks a bit thin because her daughter was ill but was it 5 or 17 who knows?
But a proper reconstitution might shed light on it.

[jassi]

You say you don't get it then go right ahead and prove you do.
I don't think it's a case of just nip in though. He will be exposed ('scuse the expression) from the time he is within sight of OC reception until out of sight of it having done the job in between. I envisage him going in for neither split arse timing nor faffing about with windows and shutters.

Red bit:
Taking Jane Tanner as an example (note! not picking on her):
From given statements using earliest time and latest time, potentially she was away from the table for 20 minutes, left 21:10 returned 21:30, jumping a number for walking time there and back of about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes what was happening in the other 17 minutes and indeed was it 17 minutes because using latest time and earliest time it was only 5 minutes absence with the same walking time. The latter looks a bit thin because her daughter was ill but was it 5 or 17 who knows?
But a proper reconstitution might shed light on it.

There was no mention of Jane not getting her food, so those times are maybe not right.

[sadie]

"Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out to the car, drive off. Job done".

Discuss.

I  cant see anything wrong with this except it ignores Jane Tanner and The Smiths.
It also ignores the fag ends found the morning after, on the balcony immediately opposite
And the multiple reports of someone watching the apartment.

It is a bit lean on detail, times, method of entry, why Madeleine etc.

But, no-one in his right mind would drive his car into the car park in front of the apartment then go in and steal a child with it standing outside. IMO.

[sadie]

That relies on...

It was really close
Being in back garden
Full view and hearing

All things to back up "responsible" parenting.

As it wasn't in easy view or within hearing distance of a noisy restaurant. The patio doors are the easiest exit.

It was an easy view . Slarti    Have you been there and sat in that restaurant Slarti at a time that the bushes had just been cut back?
Cos I have.

It is like a back garden, which effectively it is, and it is amazingly cosy to have managed to fit everything in.

[stephen25000]

It was an easy view . Slarti    Have you been there and sat in that restaurant Slarti at a time that the bushes had just been cut back?
Cos I have.

It is like a back garden, which effectively it is, and it is amazingly cosy to have managed to fit everything in.

No it isn't.

It was also dark.

[G-Unit]

No it isn't.

It was also dark.

Who was sitting facing the apartments? Not the McCanns.

1578 'And from where you were sat, what was your view like of the apartments''
 Reply 'Erm well yeah I could see, I mean I could see the patio doors of ours and Gerry and Kates'.
1578 'How much of the patio doors''
 Reply 'Erm well kind of the top half really'.
1578 'Okay'.
 Reply "Yeah you know, I didn't get a full you know, you couldn't get a full view sort of right in, cos there were bushes, there were bushes and stuff there, erm'.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

[Vicky]

Makes sense..occams razor and all that..

A further theory I believe should be considered, despite Kate's objections to this, is the woke and wandered one.

I don't see how it can be discounted, given that the doors were open, the child was nearly 4 and it was not unknown for her to wander around given Gerry said he thought she may have woke and gone through to the parents room. Why is it considered not possible for Maddie to wander out of the unlocked door searching for her parents?

Woke and wandered scenario, to me anyway, seems much more likely than an abductor breaking in. This could also include a abductor picking her up off the street or something, but I really think she might have been wandering around in the dark, been knocked over and the person who knocked her over hid the body for fear of prosecution. 

[Alfred R Jones]

Makes sense..occams razor and all that..

A further theory I believe should be considered, despite Kate's objections to this, is the woke and wandered one.

I don't see how it can be discounted, given that the doors were open, the child was nearly 4 and it was not unknown for her to wander around given Gerry said he thought she may have woke and gone through to the parents room. Why is it considered not possible for Maddie to wander out of the unlocked door searching for her parents?

Woke and wandered scenario, to me anyway, seems much more likely than an abductor breaking in. This could also include a abductor picking her up off the street or something, but I really think she might have been wandering around in the dark, been knocked over and the person who knocked her over hid the body for fear of prosecution.

who opened the window then?

[Vicky]

who opened the window then?

Has it ever been confirmed that the window was actually open? From what I have read window/shutter has been broken, not broken, open, closed..and so on.

I just think woke and wandered, leading to kidnap/death in some way makes a lot of sense, especially given the lack of evidence of an intruder in the apartment.

The window thing has always confused me because if it was indeed open, why? The intruder would have came in via the patio doors so surekly out the same way (as it is expected they knew the McCanns left the kids and were watching, so would know the door was open...) and to get to the window would have been a struggle at night with the 2 cots in the room also.

[Eleanor]

I think we might have done this before, several times.

[Vicky]

I think we might have done this before, several times.

Again sorry, but as I said a few posts back, I only started reading the forum again last night, and my first post was today. Are we not supposed to post anything until we have read every thread on the forum or something? As this is the second time on my first day of posting that something like this has been said :/

[Eleanor]

Again sorry, but as I said a few posts back, I only started reading the forum again last night, and my first post was today. Are we not supposed to post anything until we have read every thread on the forum or something? As this is the second time on my first day of posting that something like this has been said :/

Catching up might be a good idea, before we start expressing controversial opinions.

[mercury]

Catching up might be a good idea, before we start expressing controversial opinions.

Only 180,000 posts to read, should do it in zip time hey? Before expressing opinions,asking questions!