Sadie's theory, the watcher and a getaway car.

[stephen25000]

Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance
The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The move follows the release of 2,000 pages of evidence last week which Portuguese detectives are accused of having failed to fully investigate.
According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html

I think some evidence may have been overlooked because of closed minds which could not accept that the theory espoused by the initial investigation had been proved wrong.

Sadie's theory has never been tested ... but in my opinion there is nothing in it that is not plausible ... and it continues to develop as other avenues are suggested.
Exactly what a theory should be ... a fluid work in progress, building on one step of evidence into the next before a conclusion can be reached.

The same can be said of the accidental death scenario and walking out of the apartment.

After all, OG used dogs in Portugal, yet apparently ignored the use of them in 2007 by the PJ.

As too Sadie's theories, who actually believes them ?

[misty]

The same can be said of the accidental death scenario and walking out of the apartment.

After all, OG used dogs in Portugal, yet apparently ignored the use of them in 2007 by the PJ.

As too Sadie's theories, who actually believes them ?

We all have our own theories to believe in. Maybe the truth will turn out to be stranger than any of them. In the meantime.......

[pathfinder73]

Sadie you agree with Kate

[G-Unit]

Sadie you agree with Kate

In her position I would have made sure I stayed in with my children, given a chance to turn back time.

[sadie]

There's no need to thank me Sadie. I picked holes in your theory to demonstrate it's lack of a factual foundation. As such I consider it fatally flawed. Changing it doesn't add the credibility it still lacks in my opinion.

Thanks for your help in honing it. 

The theory is now stronger, because it always niggled me a bit that The Watcher /Getaway Driver was in full view and rather close to anyone coming out through the tapas reception.

Thanks again 

To help me further, can you please specify where it still lacks in your opinion

Maybe I can hone it a bit more

[Brietta]

Thanks for your help in honing it. 

The theory is now stronger, because it always niggled me a bit that The Watcher /Getaway Driver was in full view and rather close to anyone coming out through the tapas reception.

Thanks again 

To help me further, can you please specify where it still lacks in your opinion

Maybe I can hone it a bit more

I think it is a logical conclusion that there had to be a vehicle involved at some stage to enable Madeleine to vanish so completely in such a short time scale.

What I find illogical is that those who adhere to some very seriously outlandish theories involving anything from clones to refrigeration to coffin invasion and cremation are so resistant to Sadie's theory.

One wonders, is it its straight forward simplicity and the stranger abduction theme which is most certainly a contender to knocking what has become a belief system of parental involvement into the long grass which makes it so abhorrent?

I haven't seen any cogent argument made regarding any aspect of Sadie's theory which starts: "I think that is impossible for the simple reason that ... ", because in my opinion you have thought about workable possibilities in systematic progression which addresses most eventualities.
One can't help thinking that had the initial investigation adopted a similar methodology at the time of Madeleine's disappearance that over ten years down the line there would be no 'mystery' or need of conspiracy theories to justify error.

In my opinion, Sadie's theory is a workable hypothesis which in its simplicity, is thought provoking.

[stephen25000]

I think it is a logical conclusion that there had to be a vehicle involved at some stage to enable Madeleine to vanish so completely in such a short time scale.

What I find illogical is that those who adhere to some very seriously outlandish theories involving anything from clones to refrigeration to coffin invasion and cremation are so resistant to Sadie's theory.

One wonders, is it its straight forward simplicity and the stranger abduction theme which is most certainly a contender to knocking what has become a belief system of parental involvement into the long grass which makes it so abhorrent?

I haven't seen any cogent argument made regarding any aspect of Sadie's theory which starts: "I think that is impossible for the simple reason that ... ", because in my opinion you have thought about workable possibilities in systematic progression which addresses most eventualities.
One can't help thinking that had the initial investigation adopted a similar methodology at the time of Madeleine's disappearance that over ten years down the line there would be no 'mystery' or need of conspiracy theories to justify error.

In my opinion, Sadie's theory is a workable hypothesis which in its simplicity, is thought provoking.

So who actually believes this theory along with the other conspiracy theories, bloodlines, Phoenicians, decendents of various historical figures, etc., that Sadie has been typing on for some time ?

After all, they are part of her theories as to why Madeleine disappeared.

Meanwhile, this Watcher, has this person been proven to exist ?

...and I almost forgot, the high level conspiracy claimed by Sadie in one of her theories protecting the 'abductor'.

[Mr Gray]

The same can be said of the accidental death scenario and walking out of the apartment.

After all, OG used dogs in Portugal, yet apparently ignored the use of them in 2007 by the PJ.

As too Sadie's theories, who actually believes them ?

SY have never ignored the alerts....they understand the significance of the alerts....they used the dogs to see if they could find evidence....that is what the dogs are used for

SY have also decided the parents are not involved which rules out accidental death and woke and wandered wasbrulled out by the archiving report...we don't know why but they have more information than we do

[G-Unit]

Thanks for your help in honing it. 

The theory is now stronger, because it always niggled me a bit that The Watcher /Getaway Driver was in full view and rather close to anyone coming out through the tapas reception.

Thanks again 

To help me further, can you please specify where it still lacks in your opinion

Maybe I can hone it a bit more

As I keep saying, it lacks any connection to reality. It's fiction from start to finish. You have started with a belief in abduction and invented a cast of characters who might have existed and might have carried out this abduction in a certain way.

If there was no abduction you've wasted all the time you've spent on inventing this story. Likewise if it was an opportunistic abduction. Likewise if it was a botched burglary, murder or an accident.

People say the evidence points to abduction, but I don't agree. I agree with the first investigation which was unable to name the crime committed. A useful theory relies on evidence, not speculation.

[Mr Gray]

As I keep saying, it lacks any connection to reality. It's fiction from start to finish. You have started with a belief in abduction and invented a cast of characters who might have existed and might have carried out this abduction in a certain way.

If there was no abduction you've wasted all the time you've spent on inventing this story. Likewise if it was an opportunistic abduction. Likewise if it was a botched burglary, murder or an accident.

People say the evidence points to abduction, but I don't agree. I agree with the first investigation which was unable to name the crime committed. A useful theory relies on evidence, not speculation.

A strange statement seeing as the theory of the first investigation was based on evidence that was found to be totally flawed

[Brietta]

So who actually believes this theory along with the other conspiracy theories, bloodlines, Phoenicians, decendents of various historical figures, etc., that Sadie has been typing on for some time ?

After all, they are part of her theories as to why Madeleine disappeared.

Meanwhile, this Watcher, has this person been proven to exist ?

...and I almost forgot, the high level conspiracy claimed by Sadie in one of her theories protecting the 'abductor'.

What nonsense! Bloodlines are not theories. They are very much a fact.

Quite a put down in my neck of the woods dependent on the tone of voice used in delivery is: "Ah kent his faither!"

Bloodlines are interwoven into the fabric of our society; if not, why is it a descendent of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha who is entitled to bear the Royal Coat of Arms and to sit on the throne of Britain but you or I are not?

As I see it, the difficulty you have with Sadie's theory is that there is nothing about it that is impossible.  It doesn't matter that you may deride 'bloodlines'.  Quite patently there are those who do not ... else no "Vivat Regina!".

We could have been closer to identifying a watcher in the balcony opposite, had the Portuguese police bothered to pick up the ends of the cigarettes which had been smoked there.

In my opinion you cannot retain credibility by dismissing out of hand one "high level conspiracy claimed" while adhering to another "high level conspiracy claimed".

From the paucity of your argument, I think you have a very long way to go if you wish to make a dent in Sadie's theory ... you have failed miserably so far for the reasons I have enumerated in my previous post.

[jassi]

Which family line is being traced back , Gerry or Kate ?

[Brietta]

As I keep saying, it lacks any connection to reality. It's fiction from start to finish. You have started with a belief in abduction and invented a cast of characters who might have existed and might have carried out this abduction in a certain way.

If there was no abduction you've wasted all the time you've spent on inventing this story. Likewise if it was an opportunistic abduction. Likewise if it was a botched burglary, murder or an accident.

People say the evidence points to abduction, but I don't agree. I agree with the first investigation which was unable to name the crime committed. A useful theory relies on evidence, not speculation.

In the interim ... Madeleine McCann remains a missing person.  So why has no "useful theory" already addressed that irrefutable fact?

[Eleanor]

How did they work that out? Were they taking Kate and Gerry's testimony into that calculation?

It is Fact of what The Archiving Report stated..

[stephen25000]

What nonsense! Bloodlines are not theories. They are very much a fact.

Quite a put down in my neck of the woods dependent on the tone of voice used in delivery is: "Ah kent his faither!"

Bloodlines are interwoven into the fabric of our society; if not, why is it a descendent of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha who is entitled to bear the Royal Coat of Arms and to sit on the throne of Britain but you or I are not?

As I see it, the difficulty you have with Sadie's theory is that there is nothing about it that is impossible.  It doesn't matter that you may deride 'bloodlines'.  Quite patently there are those who do not ... else no "Vivat Regina!".

We could have been closer to identifying a watcher in the balcony opposite, had the Portuguese police bothered to pick up the ends of the cigarettes which had been smoked there.

In my opinion you cannot retain credibility by dismissing out of hand one "high level conspiracy claimed" while adhering to another "high level conspiracy claimed".

From the paucity of your argument, I think you have a very long way to go if you wish to make a dent in Sadie's theory ... you have failed miserably so far for the reasons I have enumerated in my previous post.

Failed miserably ??

Hardly.

I regard this bloodlines reference to this case as a mere DIVERSION, totally unproven as relevant, and essentially no more than a load of old twaddle as regards how and why Madeleine disappeared.

Can you prove otherwise ?

Sadie and her theories are unproved, A.I.M.H.O. , continuation of this as a viable 'theory' will make this forum a laughing stock.