Interpreting the facts using a different paradigm

[Robittybob1]

I see in the file they used a type options approach too.

Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.

I can't see anything that comes close to the New Theory. Maybe this comes the closest "or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction)"

How does one eliminate that?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Robittybob1]

They were certainly phoning mobs in PDL at that time so why invent that someone was impersonating them?

Could you explain yourself please?  I don't know what you mean by: "They were certainly phoning mobs in PDL at that time "
They - are you talking about the British Consulate?  Mobs is that mobile phones? 
"Why invent that someone was impersonating them?" Why?  For that is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
It didn't seem to work in some ways for they seemed to keep on searching.  But maybe it was enough to keep them out of the apartment till more senior staff arrived.  If that was achieved maybe the con worked.

Can you see any evidence from the cell phone records that there was a call from the British Consulate?

[Robittybob1]

Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.

1.  dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2.  cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)

[ferryman]

Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.

1.  dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2.  cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)

Read the files.

Mark Harrison says no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.

Why do you disbelieve him?

[Robittybob1]

Read the files.

Mark Harrison says no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reactions of the dogs.

Why do you disbelieve him?

by saying there was an option for a cadaver there is not incriminating, there could be quite legal reasons for that to be the case.
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.

1.  dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2.  cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine (what would be the reason for this?)
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option) (There are plenty of non incriminating reasons for this)

[John]

Did the first two GNR officers attending the callout at PDL get a call from the British Consulate?
1.  Yes this was confirmed
2. Yes but it was never confirmed.
3. No,  this was confirmed.  It was a hoax call.
4. No, this was not confirmed though.  GA thought this was standard practice.

I would guess it was a hoax call originating in the OC confines to stand down the GNR officers because they had turned up unexpectedly quick.
Situation described below.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm

He also refers to a situation when he was searching outside, near the pool, that someone from the OC whom he cannot identify, passed him a mobile phone, as a British Consulate employee who spoke in Portuguese, wanted to talk to the authorities. Upon speaking to him, he told him that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ.

I know you feel there was something untoward with what happened and had hoped to start a new thread on the subject but I don't think there is any mileage in it.

Undoubtedly the Consulate had been alerted by someone connected to the parents or the extended group and this was the only way they could get first hand information.  I don't see anything sinister in it?

[John]

Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.

1.  dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2.  cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)

This has not been established, as previously pointed out Eddie alerts to many substances as well as cadaverine.

[Robittybob1]

This has not been established, as previously pointed out Eddie alerts to many substances as well as cadaverine.

Add in more options
Cadaver odour detected in or near wardrobe main bedroom.

1.  dogs lie and no cadaver was in this bedroom
2.  cadaver was in this bedroom
2.1 Cadaver was Madeleine
2.2 Cadaver was not Madeleine (this is my preferred option)
3.  Dogs detecting odd chemical substances as well as cadaverine ( No known reason why these substances were used in those buildings).

[Robittybob1]

I know you feel there was something untoward with what happened and had hoped to start a new thread on the subject but I don't think there is any mileage in it.

Undoubtedly the Consulate had been alerted by someone connected to the parents or the extended group and this was the only way they could get first hand information.  I don't see anything sinister in it?

It is one of the oddest things to happen in this investigation that the very first GNR officers would be told "that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ."  Since they were GNR officers and not PJ officers were they allowed to continue their job (whatever they were doing) at the time?  Basically their statements are devoid of useful information.  So did this action allow people to move things out of the apartment at a time when the men of the Tapas group were either searching or with John Hill sorting out the issue of the jurisdiction.  As a former "Inspector" if my authority was challenged in that way it definitely would have slowed me down until I had it confirmed whether the "British Consulate" had any say over my duties for it has the ring of higher authority to it.  Would these two guys risk having a diplomatic embarrassment  on their hands?
It definitely needs confirming who did this.  Goncalo Amaral might have accepted it as a fact but to me knowing the sort of tricks that can be played it seems like a diversion.

Can someone in England get this confirmed?