What evidence is there for the Walking Out of the Apartment Theory ?

Here is an opportunity for posters to have a reasoned discussion on this.

Kate McCann has always completely denied this possibility;

"To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could have walked out on her own you would have to accept that she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sitting-room curtains and drawing them again, then opening the patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you know who would do that? And we knew our Madeleine. She simply would not wander off like this."

Firstly, there is doubt as to whether the front door was deadlocked, so Madeleine may have exited using that door. Secondly, she didn't have to mess with the curtains, just get behind them and put her hand in the gap to open the door. Finally, Kate didn't do the 9.30 check, and Matthew was so vague about the gates she can't be sure they were all closed. Madeleine certainly was prone to wandering off; she took the twins with her too one day, according to Gerry. Then there's the conversation reported by her friends.

An unlocked patio door.

How loud Madeleine was on Tuesday according to the late Pamela Fenn then I believe she would have been heard if she had got out in the dark crying for her parents. Moyes said they were out on the balcony for a while and nearby Berry/Balu were on a balcony. Nobody heard anything with people leaving the tapas bar and Jez walking the streets. All witnesses agree it was a very quiet night until the alarm and I believe Madeleine was indeed silent and seen in the suppressed file sighting.

While I accept that Madeleine COULD have left of her own accord, I cannot accept it as a realistic event.
IF she left, what happened to her? She could not just disappear like that.
Why should she have fallen foul to a handy predator that just happened to be passing?
Why should she not have been seen by a benign passerby who took her reception or called the police?
According to the Tapas crowd they were backwards and forwards every few minutes so a wandering child should have quickly been seen and united with its parents.


Nah, didn't happen

Travers wrote:While I accept that Madeleine COULD have left of her own accord, I cannot accept it as a realistic event.
IF she left, what happened to her?  She could not just disappear like that.
Why should she have fallen foul to a handy predator that just happened to be passing?
Why should she not have been seen by a benign passerby who took her reception or called the police?
According to the Tapas crowd they were backwards and forwards every few minutes so a wandering child should have quickly been seen and united with its parents.


Nah, didn't happen

If she had had an accident outside the apartment, anyone could have found her, not just a handy predator.

Exactly. There would have been far more benign people around that evening than predatory ones

In a missing persons case there are usually just 4 explanations, elopement, kidnap,murder,suicide.what was it Rowley said of the first,she was only 3 and not going to leave and start a new life,or words to that effect,suicide is obviously a non starter,leaves just two!

enyam wrote:In a missing persons case there are usually just 4 explanations,  elopement, kidnap,murder,suicide.what was it Rowley said of the first,she was only 3 and not going to leave and start a new life,or words to that effect,suicide is obviously a non starter,leaves just two!

You missed accident.

Slartibartfast wrote:

enyam wrote:In a missing persons case there are usually just 4 explanations,  elopement, kidnap,murder,suicide.what was it Rowley said of the first,she was only 3 and not going to leave and start a new life,or words to that effect,suicide is obviously a non starter,leaves just two!

You missed accident.

Yeah I know,but I did say usually.

Oldfield said, in his statement , he thought it was kidnap for ransom because the McCanns were well off.

Oldfield, who would have a good idea of their income, thought they were well off. Other evidence suggests that they had no reserves. The Fund was used for mortgage payments and a family member mentioned helping them out;

When Madeleine first went missing, family and friends had to step in to help them pay the mortgage.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/madeleine-mccanns-aunt-explains-why-she-has-joined-1079005

Why they needed help isn't clear. Both were still being paid their salaries at the beginning, and were being housed and fed free by Mark Warner.

Grom wrote:Oldfield, who would have a good idea of their income, thought they were well off. Other evidence suggests that they had no reserves. The Fund was used for mortgage payments and a family member mentioned helping them out;

When Madeleine first went missing, family and friends had to step in to help them pay the mortgage.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/madeleine-mccanns-aunt-explains-why-she-has-joined-1079005

Why they needed help isn't clear. Both were still being paid their salaries at the beginning, and were being housed and fed free by Mark Warner.

Quite right.

They were clearly in major financial trouble very early on, and that is when they were both working.

Now Kate McCann has apparently returned to work in an unspecified medical field.

So how did they cope financially in the meantime, with only one working ?

So begs the question, was all the money they were 'receiving' in donations and payments from TVprograms, magazine deals, newspaper articles, serialiazation rights, etc., actually going into the fund , or was some being 'diverted' ?

Given the 'transparency' of the Fund it is difficult to know where money has gone and what it has been used for. I suspect generous expenses may be the order of the day.

Do they have a particularly prosperous lifestyle? They don't appear to, though appearances may deceived.
Gerry seems to have buried himself within the university while Kate indulged in a little light dusting around the house.
Hardly the life-style of the wealth.

Therein lies the mystery.

They were in considerable difficulty, and received 'backing'.

Yet with moat of the last 10 years with one salary to survive on, apparently, no problems.

Then there is the other address...............

Admin wrote:Therein lies the mystery.

They were in considerable difficulty, and received 'backing'.

Yet with moat of the last 10 years with one salary to survive on, apparently, no problems.

Then there is the other address...............

Tease

Tell us more

I will later, when I am back on a PC.

It may be nothing at all, or maybe.............

I only put in Oldfield's quote because I thought it was daft!!

If one is going to kidnap for ransom one is going to do a bit of research into the whole deal which one would have thought ....................oh well never mind; perhaps she was kidnapped to be ransomed for a few Woodbines and couple of crates of Waddy's 6X but I don't buy it.

Travers wrote:

Admin wrote:Therein lies the mystery.

They were in considerable difficulty, and received 'backing'.

Yet with moat of the last 10 years with one salary to survive on, apparently, no problems.

Then there is the other address...............

Tease  

Tell us more

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/zbEO4jtjvImYm8-zgzIRad54Fu4/appointments

Just a correspondence address, I think, as used below too.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03767312/officers

Woke and wandered is much more believable than abduction via a window!

Maddie could have been found by one of the tapas...she could have fell and banged her head and died or drowned in the pool? How woud they explain that-knowing back home it could mean immediate imprisionment charged and loss of other children.