I may be mixing up Thomas Cook with Thompsons, and if that is the case, mea culpa. Just compare and contrast the two major tour operators at the time, and make up your own mind about what level of information appears on the MW arrivals list that does not appear on the other.
The reason as to why the individual might have been involved at this level of activity is documented in the files. Note I have stressed 'might', as I definitely cannot prove 'was'.
Said individual could determine where the T9 were to be accommodated, had access to the keys and is on file as saying the T9 would probably choose Tapas over Millennium, due to the distances involved.
Said individual had no control over 1) whether the T9 all had decent baby monitors 2) whether the T9 used the crèche or had a nanny sit in 3) whether the T9 took their children to the Tapas a la Stephen Carpenter 4) whether the T9 conducted checks every 5 minutes or not.
Point 4) is predictable and provides the major window of opportunity in both a botched burglary and a pre-planned abduction. While the T9 stated the checks were time driven (i.e. look at watch, 30mins has gone by, must go and check) nothing supports this and various statements suggest otherwise. The visits appear to be largely event driven. I can find no evidence whatsoever of any of the checkers looking at their watches, during either starters or mains, deciding the time had come for a check, and getting up and leaving the meal half-eaten to conduct a check.
Everything supports that when starters began to be served, the checkers stayed at the table until they had eaten, then did any check between starters and mains. Seeing starters come out would give a perpetrator a quite limited window of opportunity to act. I can't remember off hand if Gerry's check was before or after starters, because it is not particularly significant. At the time of Gerry's check, it was still too light to conduct a burglary/abduction/body disposal with any degree of safety.
That moves us to around 9.30, when it WAS dark enough to carry out the deed under the cover of darkness. Two checkers go, one stays behind re a sick child (also an event a burglar/abductor could not possibly control) and Matthew pops into 5A to do his check, which does not involve actually checking Madeleine.
Matthew returns to the table. We are now back into event-driven checking. Mains start to be served. As per usual, none of the checkers gets up with a meal half-eaten. One checker eats her meal hurriedly, then goes to take over from her partner, but no-one leaves until his/her mains have been consumed. This switch between one partner and another is out of pattern, but I don't see that as being important either.
A burglar or an abductor who had any inkling of the T9 routine should have been into 5A as soon as the mains started to be served. It is the longest, most predictable window of opportunity for that night. Neither burglary nor abduction requires more than one perpetrator.
That perpetrator does not have to be the person making the T9 arrangements. I have no evidence to support it was, or was not. It just has to be a perpetrator willing to take a risk. With the knowledge I have detailed that risk gets minimised, but of course it might have been lightning-strike random instead.
I have already pointed, as clearly as I am going to, to the small group of people with access to the knowledge, with access to the keys, and wit. h ability to control. I can only make it clearer by naming names, and I'm not prepared to do that, even if everything is covered in the files.
These are my deductions, based on the PJ Files. I have probably underestimated the amount of people with access to the areas named;
The people who could see the computer systems were; All OC office and reception staff, possibly some MW staff. At least twelve people.
The people who could access the apartment keys held at reception were; all OC reception staff, possibly some MW staff. At least eight people.
