‘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?