Not only is there no proof, there's no clear connections between the different parts.
New MW booking system. May be significant, may not. Information on other existing systems is sparse, so we can't judge.
Access to bookings. Potentially all staff who worked in the main OC reception building; reception, bookings, and admin. people.
Allocations; I would be very surprised if they were made only the evening before arrivals. It's like a theatre allocating all the seats only on the day of the performance. I await a cite for the idea they were left so late.
Control. You seem to think allocation to Block 5 is significant, but it's only significant if the person making allocations could see some advantage in placing the group in this block rather than in another location. What do you suggest the 'controller's' purpose was?
You seem to be working quite hard not to drink the water placed in front of you.
I have stated repeatedly that I cannot get access to all of the information to 'prove' this, therefore you are going to have to make do with the pieces that ARE available.
New MW booking system that makes clear, for the very first time, that 8 children under 4, 7 of them girls, were in the same party. A TC booking system that did not do the same. If you wish to disregard this change, you need to show it was not significant e.g. the TC info would have showed Madeleine's age, which it wouldn't.
Access to bookings. Who would care? Let me see, the person making the booking. And the fixer, whether that is the booker or otherwise. There is no reason other staff would give a jot.
Allocations. I am working on what is in the statements and what I see on the print-outs. It is quite, quite different to a theatre allocating tickets. In that scenario, the theatre customer tells the price he wants to pay, the theatre checks seats available, and issues a ticket. End of story. Ditto other scenarios like air flights.
The OC working is quite different. The OC has a stock of properties, each with facilities that vary e.g. there are T1s, T2s, T3s and I vaguely remember a T8 (or did I get that wrong - that sounds too big). It is not single seats being sold to individuals. It is grouped capability, where the apartments have different properties. It would not have been possible to squeeze the Payne group into a T1 if the OC had run out of T2s.
From memory, Textusa has used the files to come up with an occupancy rate of roughly 50%. The actual figure is not important - there was a lot of spare capacity.
A booker therefore had a simple task, particularly with the T9. Check there were plenty of T2s available (did any of the group have a T1) and job done.
The allocator had a somewhat harder task - to try to make the allocations fit the requests. This seems to have been 3 step.
First, allocate properties to owner's making owner requests, which is another likely reason allocation was done late in the day. Imagine telling an owner he could not have his property because it had been allocated to a 3rd party some time before.
Second, try to cater for parties wishing to be co-located. Not a big issue at 50% occupancy.
Third, try to take into account the many other requests, such as ground floor, sea view and the such like. From memory, Balu requested ground floor and got it, Berry requested ground floor and did not get it. Payne requested ground floor for all and the other 3 families got it while he did not.
Why is allocation to block 5 important? From where did Madeleine disappear? Would she have disappeared if the McCanns were allocated an apartment in Rua do Pouço, which is too far away when dining to leave the children?
IF things happened that way, and I stress again it is a very big IF, it is simply a case of incorporating a knowledge of the OC into a well-constructed plan.
After all, whatever happened . the McCanns, a botched burglary, an abduction - whoever did it has been successful in getting away with it for the last 9 years.
