Theory #1

[Robittybob1]

When a picture paints a thousand words (OK, maybe 100 in this case).

The legend notes were never translated either.

[Brietta]

It may be nothing, but I wondered what she meant about walking along the side of the pavement that she was about to walk along.

It just seemed an odd way of describing someone simply crossing the junction from left to right.

Probably nothing.

She was describing her journey from the tapas to her apartment ~ passing Gerry and Jes who were deep in conversation ~ her sighting of the man carrying the child at the top of the road.

Perhaps viewing the whole rather than the part would help you to see the bigger picture?

[Heriberto Janosch]

Years ago I suggested in my blog that JT saw the abductor at approximately 21:50.
But now I am not interested in JT sighting, although I continue thinking she really saw the abductor at 21:50.
I had closed my blog on MBM, and tried to forget the case. And got busy with Diana Quer and Manuela Chavero Spanish cases. But now I have a new hint about MBM case, a possible burglar acting in the same location, near 5A, in April 2007. He is  not one of the arguidos.
 

[Robittybob1]

Years ago I suggested in my blog that JT saw the abductor at approximately 21:50.
But now I am not interested in JT sighting, although I continue thinking she really saw the abductor at 21:50.
I had closed my blog on MBM, and tried to forget the case. And got busy with Diana Quer and Manuela Chavero Spanish cases. But now I have a new hint about MBM case, a possible burglar acting in the same location, near 5A, in April 2007. He is  not one of the arguidos.

According to most statements @ 21:50 Jane Tanner would have allowed Russell to go back to the Tapas bar.  At 21:50 she would theoretically be in her apartment so how does she get to see any abductor from there?

[misty]

According to most statements @ 21:50 Jane Tanner would have allowed Russell to go back to the Tapas bar.  At 21:50 she would theoretically be in her apartment so how does she get to see any abductor from there?

How did Jane return to the apartment to relieve Russell of his parental duty?

[Robittybob1]

How did Jane return to the apartment to relieve Russell of his parental duty?

Exactly.  What time did that happen?  We have Matt returning and telling Jane that ROB was looking after Evie.  So she rushes her meal down and returns to the apartment.  According to GA Jane would have returned via the alleyway and ROB would have left the same way as by then Jane was there.  No need to take the long way around when someone in the apartment.  There seems to be a lot of rushing but no one really defines the time.
So when and where did she see the man?

[Brietta]

Exactly.  What time did that happen?  We have Matt returning and telling Jane that ROB was looking after Evie.  So she rushes her meal down and returns to the apartment.  According to GA Jane would have returned via the alleyway and ROB would have left the same way as by then Jane was there.  No need to take the long way around when someone in the apartment.  There seems to be a lot of rushing but no one really defines the time.
So when and where did she see the man?

According to Jane ... who I think is the person best placed to know her movements ... she left the tapas area and walked up R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins towards block five, passing Gerry and Jes on the way,
She saw the man and child walking along R. Dr. Agostinho da Silva crossing the road at the junction of that and R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and continuing on his way past Block six still on R. Dr. Agostinho da Silva.

[Robittybob1]

According to Jane ... who I think is the person best placed to know her movements ... she left the tapas area and walked up R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins towards block five, passing Gerry and Jes on the way,
She saw the man and child walking along R. Dr. Agostinho da Silva crossing the road at the junction of that and R. Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and continuing on his way past Block six still on R. Dr. Agostinho da Silva.

Trouble with that is it isn't the time period raised by Heriberto.  21.50H not 21.15.

[Brietta]

Trouble with that is it isn't the time period raised by Heriberto.  21.50H not 21.15.

Since we do not know the time sequence which may have been followed by an ... alleged ... abductor I have never gone into the timing of the witnesses per se.
Heriberto has studied these minutely and I bow to his superior knowledge as far as that is concerned.

It is generally recognised that an ... alleged ... abductor would have been capable of striking and being well on his/her way in a few minutes if not seconds ... and whichever timetable you use ... there were gaps which allowed for that.  In my opinion.

[Robittybob1]

Since we do not know the time sequence which may have been followed by an ... alleged ... abductor I have never gone into the timing of the witnesses per se.
Heriberto has studied these minutely and I bow to his superior knowledge as far as that is concerned.

It is generally recognised that an ... alleged ... abductor would have been capable of striking and being well on his/her way in a few minutes if not seconds ... and whichever timetable you use ... there were gaps which allowed for that.  In my opinion.

In some scenarios an abduction took place that isn't planned in anyway but forced upon someone.  It is for this reason I find it difficult to reply to your post as when I read it you make it sound as if someone was planning to abduct Madeleine and was choosing the right time to do this.
"Since we do not know the time sequence which may have been followed by an ... alleged ... abductor"
"It is generally recognised that an ... alleged ... abductor would have been capable of striking and being well on his/her way in a few minutes if not seconds ... and whichever timetable you use ... there were gaps which allowed for that."

I can't tell if you intentionally meant what I get from that, but it doesn't flow with the theory that John and some others advocate, that Madeleine woke and wandered, then got hurt.
No one planned to wake her.
No one planned the route she took
No one planned to knock her over.

So in our scenario we can't relate to a planned alleged abduction, as it feels more like a consequence of other random events.
Also what am I trying to time is not the abductor but more events that may have indicated when Madeleine could have woken or when she escaped or when she was knocked over.
Goncalo Amaral in one of his many theories proposed the accident happening inside of the apartment, I seem to recall something about Madeleine climbing up on the sofa and falling from there, that happening when Jez and Gerry were talking on the street below.
Who discovers her deceased in that theory I'm not too sure.  But since it isn't in my theory and the timing seemed all wrong to me, I dismissed his theory.

It read as if Heriberto blames the alleged burglars for waking Madeleine and he proposed a specific time for that 21:51 or around there, but I can't recall why, or if he does attempt to explain why Madeleine woken by the burglars would exit the apartment via the front door, on the same side of the apartment as the burglars are operating from.  I tend to think maybe Madeleine heard a noise but wasn't sure what woke her.   But still why would she exit the front door when the patio door was left unlocked?

[Robittybob1]

No one planned to wake her.
No one planned the route she took
No one planned to knock her over.
and maybe no one planned to abduct her.

All these stages are not caused or observed or perpetrated by the same person or people.  Because there maybe multiple people involved and no one wants to admit that they contributed to her disappearance it doesn't get solved.
At least Kate admitted to leaving the door unlocked  and Gerry followed suite on the 10th.
Who woke her?
Who made her leave by the front door?
Who knocked her over?
Who removed her from the scene?

Was this 4 or more different coincidental events?

[Brietta]

In some scenarios an abduction took place that isn't planned in anyway but forced upon someone.  It is for this reason I find it difficult to reply to your post as when I read it you make it sound as if someone was planning to abduct Madeleine and was choosing the right time to do this.
"Since we do not know the time sequence which may have been followed by an ... alleged ... abductor"
"It is generally recognised that an ... alleged ... abductor would have been capable of striking and being well on his/her way in a few minutes if not seconds ... and whichever timetable you use ... there were gaps which allowed for that."

I can't tell if you intentionally meant what I get from that, but it doesn't flow with the theory that John and some others advocate, that Madeleine woke and wandered, then got hurt.
No one planned to wake her.
No one planned the route she took
No one planned to knock her over.

So in our scenario we can't relate to a planned alleged abduction, as it feels more like a consequence of other random events.
Also what am I trying to time is not the abductor but more events that may have indicated when Madeleine could have woken or when she escaped or when she was knocked over.
Goncalo Amaral in one of his many theories proposed the accident happening inside of the apartment, I seem to recall something about Madeleine climbing up on the sofa and falling from there, that happening when Jez and Gerry were talking on the street below.
Who discovers her deceased in that theory I'm not too sure.  But since it isn't in my theory and the timing seemed all wrong to me, I dismissed his theory.

It read as if Heriberto blames the alleged burglars for waking Madeleine and he proposed a specific time for that 21:51 or around there, but I can't recall why, or if he does attempt to explain why Madeleine woken by the burglars would exit the apartment via the front door, on the same side of the apartment as the burglars are operating from.  I tend to think maybe Madeleine heard a noise but wasn't sure what woke her.   But still why would she exit the front door when the patio door was left unlocked?

Amaral based his theory on flawed data ... there is absolutely no evidence or any reason whatsoever to suppose Madeleine plunged to her death from the sofa.

If she heard her father's voice ... is there any good reason why she would not have gone to the patio door and either called to him or followed him and be seen by him or Jes?

Why would you think predators do not stalk and plan their evil actions?

[Robittybob1]

Amaral based his theory on flawed data ... there is absolutely no evidence or any reason whatsoever to suppose Madeleine plunged to her death from the sofa.

If she heard her father's voice ... is there any good reason why she would not have gone to the patio door and either called to him or followed him and be seen by him or Jes?

Why would you think predators do not stalk and plan their evil actions?

"Theory #1" - In this theory a burglary was commenced, and then aborted when MBM was disturbed, presumably by the noise.
MBM decided to tell her parents. She left by the front door which may be opened by the latch, given there is no evidence the door was deadlocked." 

OK in this theory we have an aborted burglary, They don't enter the apartment but that wakes Madeleine.  It is then theorised that Madeleine leaves by the front door, and that is the bit that troubles me.  Why choose the front door rather than the patio door?
Once out on the street she does not make it into the secondary reception. 

I don't see any stalking and planing "their evil actions" here in this theory.

[misty]

"Theory #1" - In this theory a burglary was commenced, and then aborted when MBM was disturbed, presumably by the noise.
MBM decided to tell her parents. She left by the front door which may be opened by the latch, given there is no evidence the door was deadlocked." 

OK in this theory we have an aborted burglary, They don't enter the apartment but that wakes Madeleine.  It is then theorised that Madeleine leaves by the front door, and that is the bit that troubles me.  Why choose the front door rather than the patio door?
Once out on the street she does not make it into the secondary reception. 

I don't see any stalking and planing "their evil actions" here in this theory.

How easy would it have been for Madeleine to close that door behind her after exiting and why would she have closed it? There is no indication the door was found to be ajar when Madeleine's absence was noticed.

[Robittybob1]

How easy would it have been for Madeleine to close that door behind her after exiting and why would she have closed it? There is no indication the door was found to be ajar when Madeleine's absence was noticed.

Exactly correct Misty and this has been the focus of much of my research this year.  Was it possible to shut the door behind you without a key?  We had several threads debating this.  I had come to the conclusion the door latch had been modified so that it wouldn't slam shut,  but no one really agreed.

The point that followed was that if the door could not be shut without a key, and if the door was truly found shut by Kate, and if Madeleine left by the front door, all this could really only be resolved by someone else shutting the front door from the inside and they leaving by the patio door.

Who this someone else could be is open for debate.