Theory #1

[Robittybob1]

"Just as I got to the top ... "
She could not have seen him from any distance away (eg the tapas doorway) until hereached the junction prior to crossing the road.

That still doesn't mean they nearly bumped into each other.  "4078    “Go on to tell me about that then as slowly as you can?”
Reply    “Yes, erm, I was, I think I was nearing the top of the road, it’s a bit of a, I’m trying to think how, but I can’t really remember how much of a hill it is, but it is definitely a hill going up there, and just as I got to the top somebody did walk across.  And the thing that really struck me was the, erm, the bare feet."

The fact that she noted the bare feet does imply she was reasonably close though.

[slartibartfast]

"Just as I got to the top ... "
She could not have seen him from any distance away (eg the tapas doorway) until hereached the junction prior to crossing the road.

So how does that fit in with...

She noticed the individual's presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So how does that fit in with...

Perfectly I would have thought, unless JT had previously made a claim to be able to see around corners.

[Robittybob1]

Perfectly I would have thought, unless JT had previously made a claim to be able to see around corners.

What Jane describes could be more or less accounted for if the person hesitated, that would allow her to see the man earlier (soon after passing Gerry and Jez) and then as she approached he stepped off the pavement and rapidly across the road.

[misty]

Misty ... it is a theory, and is therefore capable of being disproved - personally I do not mind if it is disproved. Having said that I do not think you have passed a threshold to disprove the theory.

Point 1.

The translation does appear to be slightly weak - it is poor to add a street name without making it clear the translator has added additional clarification.

However, I have Google translated a section:

block 6 turns to the right and heads for the area of ​​the adjacent car park, more concretely next to a light pole, smelling the floor of that place. after crossing the road again and heading for the entrance area of ​​access to the resturants and swimming pool, smelling the door that was closed that hour.

Is  there be any doubt about the location? Plus the translation, if anything, downplayed the description of the location of the door.

Point 2

The towel was supplied by the McCann family to locate MBM. I see no reason to believe this was flawed. I suspect it is the pink towel, but this cannot be proved or disproved.

Point 3

I would dispute this point, but am not an expert.

Point 4

It is ultimately unknown why the dogs lost the scent. If the tracker dog trail is MBM and the scent was lost at that point, it may indicate something happened at that location; there isn't a 100% certainty on this point, simply balance of probabilities. If something happened then realistically it would seem she was either carried off, or possibly involved in a RTA.

All IMO, and ultimately, it is simply a theory.

I do realise that it’s a theory but it would be helpful to know the threshold level acceptable to you for disproving this particular theory.
There is no doubt the S&R dogs tracked around Block 5, crossed the road & also showed interest at the locked Tapas Reception door. What is questionable is just whose scent they were following, given that Amaral claimed the pink blanket disappeared sometime after the first night.
Please explain your reasons for doubting Gerry’s scent may have been on the towel as he also walked the same route the tracking dogs followed.

I suspect the scent was lost in the car lot due to the open space, away from the walkways where scent molecules would have been deposited on the walls.

In your theory, would Madeleine have been taken away/run over by the same person who caused her to leave the apartment via the front door or another random individual who just happened to be passing, also unwitnessed?

[sadie]

I do realise that it’s a theory but it would be helpful to know the threshold level acceptable to you for disproving this particular theory.
There is no doubt the S&R dogs tracked around Block 5, crossed the road & also showed interest at the locked Tapas Reception door. What is questionable is just whose scent they were following, given that Amaral claimed the pink blanket disappeared sometime after the first night.
Please explain your reasons for doubting Gerry’s scent may have been on the towel as he also walked the same route the tracking dogs followed.

I suspect the scent was lost in the car lot due to the open space, away from the walkways where scent molecules would have been deposited on the walls.

In your theory, would Madeleine have been taken away/run over by the same person who caused her to leave the apartment via the front door or another random individual who just happened to be passing, also unwitnessed?

Most hotels provide identical towels for all guests.  I have never stayed in an Aparthotel, but I would have thought it similar

Most members of the family might well have kept their towels in the same bathroom.  Very easy to get them mixed up if identical in colour and style.

The towel shown to the dogs may not have even been Madeleines?



If however, each childs towel was kept on/by their bed, then Madeleines towel could easily have been contaminated by the smell of an abductor.   Did he /she wipe his/her sweaty hands on it ?

[misty]

Most hotels provide identical towels for all guests.  I have never stayed in an Aparthotel, but I would have thought it similar

Most members of the family might well have kept their towels in the same bathroom.  Very easy to get them mixed up if identical in colour and style.

The towel shown to the dogs may not have even been Madeleines?



If however, each childs towel was kept on/by their bed, then Madeleines towel could easily have been contaminated by the smell of an abductor.   Did he /she wipe his/her sweaty hands on it ?

The towels in the apartment all appear to be white, except for one multi-coloured beach towel pictured over the back of a dining table chair in the crime scene photos.
There was a white towel on the bathroom floor, one on the end of a cot, two on the airer on the patio & what looks like at least two on the back of the dining chair under the window.
Two fresh towels appear to have been placed on the parents' beds before the afternoon photos 4th May.
Was the Aztec towel described by the dog handler possibly the beach towel? Madeleine certainly went to the beach & also swimming that day - but which towel was used to dry feet after the famous last photo at the pool?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm  (1st set of 5A photos)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm (2nd set taken late afternoon 4/5)

[misty]

Thank you for taking the time to post the diagram, but for the record I was aware of this diagram.

My original points were:

There are two potential anomalies in the statements with respect to the sighting: (1) GMcC reports the JT as being 50m from the individual, which would place JT at the entrance, and (2) JT reports:

4078    “And was that, is there another pavement there, on the junction?”
Reply    “No, they were on, there’s a junction, this is sort of the road and they were walking along the side of the pavement, then I would then walk along”.
4078    “So they were on the same side that you were about to walk along?”
Reply    “Yeah”.

50m would place JT at around the entrance to Tapas bar i.e. the door where the tracker dog trail was lost.

The second point, which I did not make explicit enough, was that JT uses the word "along" as opposed to the word "across". This could be a Fredudian slip, but only in the sense that her subconscious mind leaked what she had seen, not a deliberate misleading statement or mistake.

If you take these two points, with my view that it is entirely possible JT was mistaken as to the timing of her sighting: i.e. the sighting occurred when she went to 'relieve' ROB, then the following scenario is a possibility:

1. The tracker dog trail ends around the door of the Tapas bar entrance.

2. A third party carried off MBM whilst walking up R. Francisco Gentil Martins.

3. As the third party approached the top of the road, JT exited the Tapas Bar to 'relieve' ROB.

4. JT saw the third party, at a distance of about 50m, who then crossed to the road.

I'm sure many will not agree this happened, and I cannot prove this happened, but it is not a completely unrealistic scenario.

I know you are aware of the diagram but others who merely read the forum posts may not be.

As far as ambiguous wording in JT's statement is concerned, perhaps it is best to hear the description of events directly from the witness in order to dispel any doubts.
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=67

[Robittybob1]

I know you are aware of the diagram but others who merely read the forum posts may not be.

As far as ambiguous wording in JT's statement is concerned, perhaps it is best to hear the description of events directly from the witness in order to dispel any doubts.
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY?t=67

When Jane says where she was when she saw the man, it was well past the indentation in the building.

[Innominate]

I do realise that it’s a theory but it would be helpful to know the threshold level acceptable to you for disproving this particular theory.
There is no doubt the S&R dogs tracked around Block 5, crossed the road & also showed interest at the locked Tapas Reception door. What is questionable is just whose scent they were following, given that Amaral claimed the pink blanket disappeared sometime after the first night.
Please explain your reasons for doubting Gerry’s scent may have been on the towel as he also walked the same route the tracking dogs followed.

I suspect the scent was lost in the car lot due to the open space, away from the walkways where scent molecules would have been deposited on the walls.

In your theory, would Madeleine have been taken away/run over by the same person who caused her to leave the apartment via the front door or another random individual who just happened to be passing, also unwitnessed?

If the S&R team leader recants and withdraws his expert opinion that the trail was laid down by MBM then that would be sufficient to undermine the basis of the theory.

[misty]

If the S&R team leader recants and withdraws his expert opinion that the trail was laid down by MBM then that would be sufficient to undermine the basis of the theory.

Silva's opinion was based on the premise the control article only contained Madeleine's scent.
How do you equate Silva's opinion with the expert opinion of Martin Grime on his cadaver dog alerts?
Why did the case coordinator, as an expert, seemingly ignore the former in favour of the latter?

[Innominate]

Silva's opinion was based on the premise the control article only contained Madeleine's scent.
How do you equate Silva's opinion with the expert opinion of Martin Grime on his cadaver dog alerts?
Why did the case coordinator, as an expert, seemingly ignore the former in favour of the latter?

It is a question of how the case coordinator weighed all the indications and evidence at his disposal. You would have to ask the case coordinator why he weighted the evidence in a particular way.

Reasonable people may disagree and come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Generally the first tier courts are the "fact finding" court - i.e. they determine the facts based on the evidence as they see it. This case has never gone to a criminal court, so the evidence has never been tested one way or the other.

[misty]

It is a question of how the case coordinator weighed all the indications and evidence at his disposal. You would have to ask the case coordinator why he weighted the evidence in a particular way.

Reasonable people may disagree and come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. Generally the first tier courts are the "fact finding" court - i.e. they determine the facts based on the evidence as they see it. This case has never gone to a criminal court, so the evidence has never been tested one way or the other.

I'm tempted to say "nicely swerved". However, on the basis of your last paragraph, do you think a Portuguese first tier court would
a) admit Grime's testimony on Eddie's alerts (even US courts don't always permit such evidence)
b) favour the opinion of one of their own experts rather than one from the UK
c) favour the opinion which supported the prosecution's case.

[Innominate]

I'm tempted to say "nicely swerved". However, on the basis of your last paragraph, do you think a Portuguese first tier court would
a) admit Grime's testimony on Eddie's alerts (even US courts don't always permit such evidence)
b) favour the opinion of one of their own experts rather than one from the UK
c) favour the opinion which supported the prosecution's case.

I can only speak for myself, and cannot give an opinion on what the Portuguese court would do. My opinion is that Grimes undermined his own evidence when he stated that the "cadaver" dog would respond to dried blood from a person who was still alive. He stated "They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."

[misty]

I can only speak for myself, and cannot give an opinion on what the Portuguese court would do. My opinion is that Grimes undermined his own evidence when he stated that the "cadaver" dog would respond to dried blood from a person who was still alive. He stated "They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."

OK, we won't turn this into yet another cadaver dog thread.

Turning to Silva's expert opinion, couldn't it also be undermined because he cannot state a specific time frame during which the scent trail was laid? Furthermore, S&R dogs are trained to track generic human scent in an open environment rather than a person-specific scent in an urban area. Do those facts not fall short of the standard required to develop Theory#1 beyond that stage?