Slarti's Simple Solution.

[Eleanor]

Let John and admit know you moderate for laughs then

Did you mean John and Admin?  They already know that one needs a sense of humour to cope with this.

[misty]

Hadn't thought of that Misty, I was thinking walk west up steps to 4 carpark, then out 4 carpark to street? 

Always a possibility - maybe even a car parked outside Block 4.
It would have needed a lot of luck not to be spotted by anyone. 9.58pm was the time the lady & her partner visiting Block 6 left in their car. Would they have seen anyone at that time as they travelled along the road? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm

[pegasus]

Always a possibility - maybe even a car parked outside Block 4.
It would have needed a lot of luck not to be spotted by anyone. 9.58pm was the time the lady & her partner visiting Block 6 left in their car. Would they have seen anyone at that time as they travelled along the road? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-M-M-DE-SILVA.htm

From the carpark on south side of 6, they turned right, then turned left at T, so they drove past 5 carpark and 4 carpark.

[misty]

... wouldn't it be difficult later to leave there unseen?

It would have provided an opportunity for proper concealment of a child. Possibly change her clothes.
There would be no more difficulty to leave unseen from there than there was in Madeleine disappearing in the first place. People were later looking for a child or a person with a child, not a man or woman leaving in a car/van carrying a case.

[misty]

From the carpark on south side of 6, they turned right, then turned left at T, so they drove past 5 carpark and 4 carpark.

As an aside, here are some photos you may find interesting, if you haven't already seen them.
http://www.ocean-country.com/property-for-sale/apartment-lagos-praia-da-luz/51

[pegasus]

It would have provided an opportunity for proper concealment of a child. Possibly change her clothes.
There would be no more difficulty to leave unseen from there than there was in Madeleine disappearing in the first place. People were later looking for a child or a person with a child, not a man or woman leaving in a car/van carrying a case.

Yes no-one was looking for someone carrying a case. But would look unusual in middle of night.

[misty]

Yes no-one was looking for someone carrying a case. But would look unusual in middle of night.

Why did it have to be the middle of the night? If Madeleine was taken at 9.15pm there was a whole hour or more before the place got busy.

[sadie]

As an aside, here are some photos you may find interesting, if you haven't already seen them.
http://www.ocean-country.com/property-for-sale/apartment-lagos-praia-da-luz/51

Good photos, thanks misty.

But I think rather old because the Tapas restaurant was bigger than that when we first went in 2010 and photos from within the restaurant show that it was much bigger in 2007 as well.

Is that the interior of number 5F ?  Nicer than 5A.

[misty]

Good photos, thanks misty.

But I think rather old because the Tapas restaurant was bigger than that when we first went in 2010 and photos from within the restaurant show that it was much bigger in 2007 as well.

Is that the interior of number 5F ?  Nicer than 5A.

I think it's 4F, Sadie.
The internal layout is interesting with the 2nd bathroom.

[Eleanor]

I remain convinced that the man Jane Tanner saw was the abductor.  There is no way in which anyone would have been coming from the Night Creche from that direction.  It just isn't possible.

I don't know why Andy Redwood even thought this, although just perhaps he was trying to confuse the real abductor.  But I don't believe that either.

Maybe he didn't have the knowledge that we have, although God forbid that he was that ignorant.

I don't have a problem with the abductor walking around Luz for three quarters of an hour.  That can be explained far more easily than some person carrying his own child across his arms and coming from the wrong direction.

[Carana]

That is my own belief but the problem with it is this.  If it is ever established that Maddie died because she was allowed to wander then her parents could well face renewed charges in the Portuguese equivalent of child neglect resulting in death.

There is the issue of intent in PT law, though.

[Carana]

Kate lied, I suspect. I do not know why. Same as I don't know why the story of firstly using a key.. which transformed into no key but entering via unlocked door..came about. But thats a lie somewhere along the line, not just a mistake.

I see no reason why Madeleine would open the window. Don't even know if she could as some of those blind things are difficult even for an adult.

The witness statements are simply a summary of what the officer noted. Gerry was the first to be interviewed. There would have had to have been a general explanation of the layout of the apartment. The front door required a key, but the back (patio) door didn't. A simple mix-up over what constituted front and back could explain the confusion without anyone lying. It was clarified the next time he was interviewed.

[Carana]

Seems strange that Jez, in all his wandering around, never saw anyone other than Gerry. Suggests that there wasn't anyone else around to see.

Rasta man?

[Carana]

So he entered the front door using a key. And also entered the unlocked patio door without a key. One of these must be wrong and he has stated both. Unless we are assuming he entered with his key, left and locked the door, then came back in via the unlocked patio for some strange reason?

The simplest explanation is an initial confusion over which door was the front and which the back one. Only one required a key.

[jassi]

The simplest explanation is an initial confusion over which door was the front and which the back one. Only one required a key.

No confusion over which door he meant, though - the one that needed a key.