Moving scales 2 – by Loops

‘Moving scales 2’ – thoughts on a timeline for conspiracy

To look at the case from the other side, i.e. the possibility that the T9 are complicit or responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann, having either covered up an accident along the lines of Amaral’s hypothesis, or murdered the child, it’s necessary to move the first two scales dramatically to the right-hand side.

Scales 1 and 2, the truthfulness of the timeline and the frequency of the checks, must go to the right extreme because they are covering up for some kind of crime, be it neglect leading to death, or murder. They’re not checking on a neglected, dead or murdered child. In both of those cases, also, the scene of the crime becomes one of staging, as both hypotheses require a conspiracy to claim an abduction. Both ideas also involve, simplistically, the raising of the shutters and the opening of the window as the main indicators of an intruder having been in G5A.

One rather obvious outcome of the T9 wishing to place both scales towards the far left, and hence having an accurate timeline with very frequent checks on all nights, is that it makes it, while in no way impossible, much more risky for an abductor to snatch the child without detection.

So, logically, a group in that particular situation, I would argue, would be primarily concerned with concealing the major crime of neglect leading to death and the concealment of a child’s corpse, or even the murder of a child, and subsequent concealment of a corpse. That group would be less concerned with making sure people didn’t think they’d been a bit lax on the responsible parenting front.

Put it this way- if you were busy faking an abduction, would you not wish to make it as plausible as possible that a kidnapper could have had ample time to complete the crime? Clearly, if you and your friends are checking those kids all the time, it does make it tougher on the abductor, whom you have invented, to be able to realise his fictional goal which you’ve also invented to get you off the hook. And if he can’t realistically do that, then you’re in the slammer.

So, would you not, then, logically, relax the rigour of your fictional checks to allow the opportunity for your fictional villain to complete the criminal action? If you’re checking all the time, that becomes less likely, and that’s precisely the line you’re looking to sell. One of the first questions people would ask would be ‘how on earth could an abductor have managed that, if you were being so careful?’ Suddenly, your get out of jail card seems fairly worthless. Would a group of 9 intelligent adults conspiring together to escape a conviction not have realised that rather obvious result of concocting a false timeline of routine checks in quick succession?

So, in a nutshell, if the T9 were complicit in a crime which led directly to the disappearance of the child, and they were banking on pinning the crime on an imagined abductor, would they not make it easy on that imagined abductor to manage to succeed in his imagined crime without major difficulty?

There’s a bit of a paradox here… to a certain extent, the further left you move scale 1 on the truthfulness of the timeline towards 0% invention, the more difficult it is for a kidnapper or kidnappers, real or imagined, to abduct the child, and hence, logically, the more likely it becomes that a conspiracy of the T9 has taken place. However, the further right you move the timeline towards 100% invention, and zero checks, the easier it becomes for an individual or group to have snatched the child without detection, planning or clear risk of detection or apprehension.

It’s not definitive, because, depending on motivation, modus operandi and serious planning or the lack of calculating risk, it would have been possible for even an individual, let alone a group, to have completed the crime within a minute, so even with the most frequent checking suggested, the abduction remains a distinct possibility.

But, the fact remains, ironically, that the less honest Tapas 9 have been in their statements regarding the timeline, the better the opportunity was for any kind of kidnapping, and the more it becomes likely they are completely innocent of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

So just how much credence do you afford the Tapas 9?


4 thoughts on “Moving scales 2 – by Loops

  1. The timeline for an outside assault does not look good. Equally, the timeline for one or other of the McCanns to do something does not look good.

    Unless Madeleine wandered off on her own, then got involved in an accident, this theorem equally does not look good. Kate set up an abduction alarm, not merely a missing child alarm, where a different response is required.

    However, as Madeleine is missing, something happened to her that night.

    5 of the T9 were hauled into Portimão around 9:30 on 4 May 2007 and statements went on into the afternoon. The other 4, from memory were late afternoon and well into the evening.

    With little or no chance for collusion, their statements fit together pretty well. And they are quite detailed over the time-checks, when an obvious course would have to seemed to be sparse on detail. A lot of “can’t remember” and “not sure” would have given them a ton of wiggle room.

    I think, with relatively small potential differences, we have a fairly solid timeline. I need to check all the variants of the timelines, see what drift there is, and whether that is significant or not. However, that will take time and effort, and for the moment I would like to return to Mission Impossible, an external assault on 5A.

    • They had time to agree a timeline, and they did, though. It was a long night from 10pm to 9.30am… full of chaos and panic. But we know they got together before then to agree the basis for the timeline.

      Now, that’s a logical thing to do. It means that the checks to G5A were already agreed upon before the 1st interviews. Whatever everyone else did on that night, they couldn’t have realistically, I think, come up with anything consistent, if it were fiction, about the various other checks, and have them pan out under questioning.

      However, I do think it’s possible that Oldfield’s check was added in by the T7, as, when considering how all this was going to come across, their motive is clear… but it’s such a mad idea… Then again, maybe he is just the worst witness ever, but is telling the truth of what he recalls, which is basically nothing. If he did check… how did he not see anything vaguely relevant?

      And the fact is his was the first time anyone checked kids that weren’t their own by entering an apartment… is that just another horrible coincidence of so many in this case? It’s certain that they thought she was gone at that stage… it explains a delayed alarm, and doesn’t alter the case from their point of view… it’s a possibility that it seemed like a good idea.

      However… when it becomes possible that she had been taken later, he rows back from comments about the light in the room, etc., basically rendering those useless too. Bah… It’s an infuriating question.

      Another thing that I find interesting on that topic is Tanner and O’Brien- their leaving sick kids unattended was pretty awful parenting by anybody’s standards.

      All early statements have them checking away with the others…. later they introduce the notion that they also had a baby monitor, though not one that was as posh as the Payne’s. You asked about range… they said they had theirs too at the table, but as it wasn’t maybe as good, they weren’t sure it worked as well, so checked too to be doubly sure. A little bit of exculpation of themselves as a couple and the group as a whole, but added well after the fact?

      Anyway, you’ve got two baby monitors, working or not… at the table or not… existing or not.

      • I’d need to know the precise baby monitor of the Payne’s to research its capabilities. However, most modern monitors from that time had a range of 200 to 300m, which covers the Tapas to 5H with ease. A few sold at that time were much more clunky at 50 to 75m, which would make the Payne claim suspect. Unless I know the precise type I can’t check the spec around 2007.

        The first statements seem pretty mixed and vague on who was entering their own apartment and who was doing a listening check outside. Whether just at their own apartment or into their own followed by listening elsewhere.

        The earliest round of T9 statements all have the Payne’s doing baby monitor only. Nobody says anyone from the Payne party did a physical check.

        Adding in Matthew’s check at 9:30 requires –
        1) Matthew to be persuaded to say this check happened. (From memory, his interview started very shortly after Gerry’s.) And he agreed, presumably, to help Gerry out. But why? I would need to scrutinise the files to find out how closely connected the McCanns and the Oldfields were at the time of the incident. I cannot dredge this out of my memory, so p’raps I am wrong on this.
        2) People who have no added value in saying this appear to confirm this. Again, I would need to re-haul through the first statements to be sure of this.

        Can’t remember where I am getting this from, probably a David Payne statement – that his monitor had a squawk function, whereby it alerted if it was out of range, while the other monitor was of the I-hope-it-is-working-properly kind, so checks were needed.

        JT and ROB v sick child. Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that one. Solutions – stay in for the night – get a take-away from the Tapas – one person stays as minder, t’other gets to party. Hmmn, I need to dwell on that for a few minutes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.