Interpreting the facts using a different paradigm

[Robittybob1]

According to Kate's book Madeleine, Gerry heard Matt screaming in the interview room after being accused by the PJ of removing Madeleine from the apartment. The interesting fact here is in that interview he revealed Kate left at 9:50 to check not 10. Amazing what crucial information pressure can bring out

So where was Matt when he noticed Kate getting up from the table at 9:50?  It takes a special reason to be so specific about a timing like that.
It is amazing the amount of information that can be exchanged instantly via text messaging.  So that could a text message or a visual observation.  He doesn't actually have to be at the table to know this.
I have heard the friends deleted a lot of text messages that night.  Were these messages between each other?
 

[Robittybob1]

According to Kate's book Madeleine, Gerry heard Matt screaming in the interview room after being accused by the PJ of removing Madeleine from the apartment. The interesting fact here is in that interview he revealed Kate left at 9:50 to check not 10. Amazing what crucial information pressure can bring out

Was that interview recorded as a statement?

[Mr Gray]

Abducted is an outcome, a deduction, and not a fact as such. I'm trying to think  how this thread will work.  She is missing that is a fact and being abducted is a reason for being missing.  But if the parents were involved we wouldn't used the word abducted but rather hidden.  So what other choices do we have? Wandered away, and abducted by aliens (just to keep everyone happy) .
Missing >> abducted or hidden or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted) or abducted by aliens.
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1.  abducted
2.  or hidden
3.  or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4.  or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1.  Stranger abduction
1.2.  or Acquaintance abduction

What is the next fact?

i have never stated abduction as a fact ...abduction is just  the most probable reason for the disappearance if everything is taken into account

[Mr Gray]

My view on these cadaver dog alerts in the apartment G5A are indicative that a cadaver had been in the wardrobe.
And the blood behind the sofa stayed moist enough to decompose and raise an alert.  But the alert does not point to a person.  It could have been MM or someone else, but a prior cadaver presence has to be accounted for.

Since there are sightings of Smithman carrying a MM look alike I'd discount MM as the source of the cadaver odour.
If you say the cadaver odour came from MM and Smithman was just taking her for a burial down at the beach she would have needed to have died much earlier in the evening. (Why would a stranger or an acquaintance ever do this???)

The alerts do not indicate there was ever a cadaver in 5a...that is a fact

[Robittybob1]

The alerts do not indicate there was ever a cadaver in 5a...that is a fact

Well prove it is a fact then?  I think the fact is there had been a cadaver in G5A. and the EVRD alert is proof of that.

The alert to the decomposed blood is not indicative of a cadaver ever being behind the sofa.
So how would you prove there was never a cadaver in the wardrobe? 

[Robittybob1]

i have never stated abduction as a fact ...abduction is just  the most probable reason for the disappearance if everything is taken into account

What type of abduction?
1.1.  Stranger abduction
1.2.  or Acquaintance abduction

I was trying to keep the full range of possibilities and see if one type of event is present in all the facts.  So we won't be applying probabilities other than saying something is improbable.  Like we can rule out alien abductions.

[Mr Gray]

What type of abduction?
1.1.  Stranger abduction
1.2.  or Acquaintance abduction

I was trying to keep the full range of possibilities and see if one type of event is present in all the facts.  So we won't be applying probabilities other than saying something is improbable.  Like we can rule out alien abductions.

stranger abduction....i dont see an acquaintance abduction as likely

[Robittybob1]

stranger abduction....i dont see an acquaintance abduction as likely

I suppose we can disagree on that.  There were so much random checking of the apartments there was no opportunity available for outsider "stranger abduction", yet within the group they knew the routines and there was potential for misunderstanding due to what was happening.  So there is a high chance of an over reaction to cover a prior accidental mistake. 
So at least you are not pointing the finger at the McCanns for a change. Like could you allow for the potential of a misunderstanding, leading to an error of judgement under the influence of excessive alcohol and prior reputational pressure?  Sorry for being rather vague, but that is a scenario that could be included under the heading of "acquaintance abduction".

[Mr Gray]

I suppose we can disagree on that.  There were so much random checking of the apartments there was no opportunity available for outsider "stranger abduction", yet within the group they knew the routines and there was potential for misunderstanding due to what was happening.  So there is a high chance of an over reaction to cover a prior accidental mistake. 
So at least you are not pointing the finger at the McCanns for a change, which is common on this forum.  Like could you allow for the potential of a misunderstanding, leading to an error of judgement under the influence of excessive alcohol and prior reputational pressure?  Sorry for being rather vague, but that is a scenario that could be included under the heading of "acquaintance abduction".

there was the opportunity for a stranger abduction as confirmed by SY......acquaintance abduction about as likely as aliens

[Robittybob1]

there was the opportunity for a stranger abduction as confirmed by SY......acquaintance abduction about as likely as aliens

Was it a 5 minute window of opportunity? 
Fact Madeleine is missing:
1.  abducted
2.  or hidden
3.  or wandered off (and then hidden or abducted)
4.  or abducted by aliens.
No 1 was further broken down to:
1.1.  Stranger abduction (SY 5 minute window of opportunity)
1.2.  or Acquaintance abduction -allow for:
* the potential of a misunderstanding,
* leading to an error of judgement
* under the influence of excessive alcohol
* and prior reputational pressure
[1.2 is highly likely for within the group there is advance knowledge when the checks are happening.]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone intentionally killed MM.  I'm just saying it is possible for her to be still alive.  But someone within the  Tapas group could have had a misunderstanding and made an error of judgement leading them to take MM from her bed and put her outside somewhere.
They can only take a few moments to do this and to set the scene to look like a stranger abduction, for their absence from the group for any extended period of time would be paramount to admitting having done it.

[sadie]

Well prove it is a fact then?  I think the fact is there had been a cadaver in G5A. and the EVRD alert is proof of that.

The alert to the decomposed blood is not indicative of a cadaver ever being behind the sofa.
So how would you prove there was never a cadaver in the wardrobe?

Robitty, Eddie alerts to:
dried blood,
other dessicated body fluids 
pig cadavar, etc
as well as to cadavar odour. 

So he could have been alerting to any one of these.

Now on probability terms which is more likely in a home or apartment, a blood spot, or a cadavar?


It is only because Amaral was so suspicious that Cadavar was even checked for ... and because he was so suspicious that an alert was aligned to Cadavar odour rather than blood.   Keela alerts only to blood.  Had keela gone in and checked, most likely the results would have been proven as blood.  The whole scenario has been blown completely out of proportion because of Amarals misunderstanding of what the alerts actually did and did not mean.

Forensic tests were necessary to prove anything ... and they were totally unable to do that.

So there is absolutely NOTHING against the Mccanns except for Amarals unfounded conviction ... and he has proved very effective at spreading that.


Forget the alert business.  It is just a nonsense.  We have all been "sold a pup"

[pegasus]

Robitty, Eddie alerts to:
dried blood,
other dessicated body fluids 
pig cadavar, etc
as well as to cadavar odour. 

So he could have been alerting to any one of these.

Now on probability terms which is more likely in a home or apartment, a blood spot, or a cadavar?


It is only because Amaral was so suspicious that Cadavar was even checked for ... and because he was so suspicious that an alert was aligned to Cadavar odour rather than blood.   Keela alerts only to blood.  Had keela gone in and checked, most likely the results would have been proven as blood.  The whole scenario has been blown completely out of proportion because of Amarals misunderstanding of what the alerts actually did and did not mean.

Forensic tests were necessary to prove anything ... and they were totally unable to do that.

So there is absolutely NOTHING against the Mccanns except for Amarals unfounded conviction ... and he has proved very effective at spreading that.


Forget the alert business.  It is just a nonsense.  We have all been "sold a pup"

In the apartment south bedrooom Eddie did alert but Keela didn't alert, what is your theory about that Sadie?

[sadie]

In the apartment south bedrooom Eddie did alert but Keela didn't alert, what is your theory about that Sadie?

Are we talking 5A ?

Was Keela shown everything in there in the same way as Eddie was ?   In other words in a persistent pointed way?

Video link please .

[John]

Since there was no other items taken it makes burglary gone wrong seem less likely.
Burglary:
1.  Intending to steal valuable items (Nothing reported taken)
2.  Intending to steal a child. (Madeleine missing.  This actually falls under the heading of abduction but the abduction is purposed for monetary reasons e.g. the sale of a child. (Is there such a thing?)
Questions:
Why would they take Madeleine and not one of the younger smaller lighter twins?  Would a younger child fit into a new family easier? A four year old is going to memorise who she is. Is she going to be harder to assimilate (4 year old)  into a new family?
Later on when the fund and the reward for finding Madeleine grew to 2.8 million pounds then she did have real value  (Kate mentions the risk of this happening in her book.)

This has all been examined previously.

[John]

My view on these cadaver dog alerts in the apartment G5A are indicative that a cadaver had been in the wardrobe.
And the blood behind the sofa stayed moist enough to decompose and raise an alert.  But the alert does not point to a person.  It could have been MM or someone else, but a prior cadaver presence has to be accounted for.

Since there are sightings of Smithman carrying a MM look alike I'd discount MM as the source of the cadaver odour.
If you say the cadaver odour came from MM and Smithman was just taking her for a burial down at the beach she would have needed to have died much earlier in the evening. (Why would a stranger or an acquaintance ever do this???)

You cannot associate the dog alerts with a cadaver without corroborative evidence.   Did you know someone died in the apartment next door, could there have been cross contamination with 5a?  Was the apartment next door even checked by the dogs?