Interpreting the facts using a different paradigm

[John]

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

The evidence however says different.

[John]

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 a 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.

I think you are on borderline deletion territory now.  Acquaintance abduction is a possibility but not involving the tapas group.

[pathfinder73]

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?

Lots of interesting facts in Matt's 10 May statement. David Payne who organised the trips away again is featured in unusual statements.

"As far as he [Matt Oldfield] is concerned, he wishes at this time to add that, in conversation with David Payne on a date he does not recall with certainty but likely to have been on 7 or 8 May, he [DP] confided in him that that, at that time, Kate Healy had been particularly reluctant about coming to Portugal because she had had a bad feeling [presentiment] about the children of the group and the non-existence of the 'baby sitting' service."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

So then they leave a door unlocked. Fascinating.......

[Robittybob1]

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 .

Try and bring the conversation back to options again please, later we will try and use the options available for the analysis.
Sadie would you be happy if one of the options was a rotting leg of ham in the bedroom wardrobe? Or what sort of option would give the situation you imagine?

[Robittybob1]

This has all been examined previously.

So we can refer to that study then.  Was there a consensus reached? (Study related to why kidnappers chose MM rather than one of the twins)

[Robittybob1]

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?

Yes you are beginning to see it using options, so for you one of the options to consider was whether there was a cadaver on the apartment next door.  So on the extended video was apartment G5B checked by Eddie?  We could check that.
But that too would be pointing at just one person for there is only one family living next door the McCanns.
And then how would you get this family having a cadaver in their apartment? I think we should just see that the next door apartment is checked and leave it there.

[Mr Gray]

The evidence however says different.

I would say the evidence points to abduction...and SY its seems agrees

[John]

I would say the evidence points to abduction...and SY its seems agrees

How do you work that one out?

[Mr Gray]

How do you work that one out?

if we look at the parents I don't see any reason for them to be involved.......I don't see how a fatal accident could have occurred within the time frame... don't see why they should cover up an accident. An accident would not affect their careers but perverting the course of justice and  afraudulent fund would end it and put them both in jail. I don't see why any guilty party would repeatedly keep the case in the public eye and push for investigation.

So in my mind we can rule out the parents which leaves abduction or w&w...

the open window indicates a third party hence abduction

[Robittybob1]

I think you are on borderline deletion territory now.  Acquaintance abduction is a possibility but not involving the tapas group.

So do you think we need to widen the acquaintance option to include other occupants of the G5 block and even the G4 block and the tennis buddies?
An acquaintance would have to be someone, that the McCanns had some previous conversation with at least and that interaction would have to have been prior to the abduction. (So you can't include everyone into the acquaintance group.)
In the investigation there was another group isolated that we haven't considered and that is the staff (they are somewhere in between strangers and acquaintances.

[Robittybob1]

if we look at the parents I don't see any reason for them to be involved.......I don't see how a fatal accident could have occurred within the time frame... don't see why they should cover up an accident. An accident would not affect their careers but perverting the course of justice and  afraudulent fund would end it and put them both in jail. I don't see why any guilty party would repeatedly keep the case in the public eye and push for investigation.

So in my mind we can rule out the parents which leaves abduction or w&w...

the open window indicates a third party hence abduction

I think that is a strong argument against the parents being involved. Unfortunately it is a picture drawn up after the event.  So it was right that they were investigated but now we should eliminate them. 

Now for the embarrassing bit what does w&w mean?

[Robittybob1]

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

For clarity this "south bedroom" is what I call "the wardrobe".

[Mr Gray]

I think that is a strong argument against the parents being involved. Unfortunately it is a picture drawn up after the event.  So it was right that they were investigated but now we should eliminate them. 

Now for the embarrassing bit what does w&w mean?

it was right they were investigated...woke and wandered

[Robittybob1]

it was right they were investigated...woke and wandered

Do you ever think the whole thing is a matter of small contributions but no one is guilty of a crime?
Starting with the parents leaving the door unlocked .... onward ... having multiple people checking the kids ...creating disturbing imaginations in others as to what is going on .... interference by concerned neighbours .... misunderstandings ... small lies .... covering up ..... etc.... but no actual kidnapping or murder.

[John]

Do you ever think the whole thing is a matter of small contributions but no one is guilty of a crime?
Starting with the parents leaving the door unlocked .... onward ... having multiple people checking the kids ...creating disturbing imaginations in others as to what is going on .... interference by concerned neighbours .... misunderstandings ... small lies .... covering up ..... etc.... but no actual kidnapping or murder.

Certainly if it turns out that Madeleine woke and wandered then no crime was committed.  If she woke and wandered and was picked up outside the apartment then abduction is the crime.