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

[G-Unit]

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

Madeleine is definitely missing. That is a fact. There is not enough evidence to decide why she is missing or where she went. Theories abound, but their usefulness is uncertain.

Operation Grange appear to have investigated planned abduction and opportunist abduction, by gangs and a lone operator. They have done this because people reported suspicious watchers and charity collectors and instances of a lone sex attacker. They have considered burglary gone wrong because there were reports of burglaries in the area. They have dismissed woke and wandered for what I see as a rather tenuous notion that the child wasn't old enough to start a new life. The various hypotheses they have investigated all arise from evidence of some kind, you will notice.

What Operation Grange appear to have neglected is  to investigate the involvement of friends and family; the usual starting point in cases of this kind. They appear to believe that this was done by the first investigation, but they may have misunderstood what the conclusions of that investigation were.

I think that Operation Grange have demonstrated that it is evidence which must underpin and suggest theories. Starting with a theory and then hoping that evidence will be found to support it isn't the way to proceed. If there's no evidence that something happened (like the existence of a getaway vehicle) it shouldn't be included.

[Brietta]

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.

You raised the diversion in the present discussion and yet again your post illustrates - in my opinion - your total lack of concept about what "theory" actually means and your inability in debate to contest the points raised in Sadie's theory goes some of the way - in my opinion - to proving its viability.

[stephen25000]

You raised the diversion in the present discussion and yet again your post illustrates - in my opinion - your total lack of concept about what "theory" actually means and your inability in debate to contest the points raised in Sadie's theory goes some of the way - in my opinion - to proving its viability.

You evidently forget what training I have in scientific disciplines.

I also know the difference between theory and wild speculation fueled by support for the mccanns, to the exclusion of all else.

Theory requires a workable hypothesis, and Sadie's as is yours, is one-dimensional.

The difference between me and you, is that I am prepared to accept different possibilities exist, as to Madeleine's fate.

However, I do know theories require logical thinking and not wild meanderings, driven by support of the McCann's.

I place Sadie's theory inline with the scientists who claimed they developed cold fusion in the 80's.

No one was able to substantiate that claim after repeated tests.

I.M.H.O. , of course.

NOW AGAIN, where has it been proved there was someone watching the McCann's ?

P.S. Do you accept the possibility of the accidental death or the walking out scenario as possible ?

Remember neither have been disproved or proved, just like abduction.

[Mr Gray]

You evidently forget what training I have in scientific disciplines.

I also know the difference between theory and wild speculation fueled by support for the mccanns, to the exclusion of all else.

Theory requires a workable hypothesis, and Sadie's as is yours, is one-dimensional.

The difference between me and you, is that I am prepared to accept different possibilities exist, as to Madeleine's fate.

However, I do know theories require logical thinking and not wild meanderings, driven by support of the McCann's.

I place Sadie's theory inline with the scientists who claimed they developed cold fusion in the 80's.

No one was able to substantiate that claim after repeated tests.

I.M.H.O. , of course.

NOW AGAIN, where has it been proved there was someone watching the McCann's ?

You are not the only person on the forum to have received scientific training.
Some of us tread scientific journals on a regular basis and are used to assessing evidence.
The fact that I believe the McCanns to be innocent does not mean I have not looked at other possibilities...I have.
Based on the evidence I think the McCanns are innocent and it appears both investigating police forces agree

[Mr Gray]

Madeleine is definitely missing. That is a fact. There is not enough evidence to decide why she is missing or where she went. Theories abound, but their usefulness is uncertain.

Operation Grange appear to have investigated planned abduction and opportunist abduction, by gangs and a lone operator. They have done this because people reported suspicious watchers and charity collectors and instances of a lone sex attacker. They have considered burglary gone wrong because there were reports of burglaries in the area. They have dismissed woke and wandered for what I see as a rather tenuous notion that the child wasn't old enough to start a new life. The various hypotheses they have investigated all arise from evidence of some kind, you will notice.

What Operation Grange appear to have neglected is  to investigate the involvement of friends and family; the usual starting point in cases of this kind. They appear to believe that this was done by the first investigation, but they may have misunderstood what the conclusions of that investigation were.

I think that Operation Grange have demonstrated that it is evidence which must underpin and suggest theories. Starting with a theory and then hoping that evidence will be found to support it isn't the way to proceed. If there's no evidence that something happened (like the existence of a getaway vehicle) it shouldn't be included.

You have made a gross error...it was the Portuguese who dismissed woke and wandered.....we do not know exactly why but they may well have facts we are not privy to

[stephen25000]

You are not the only person on the forum to have received scientific training.
Some of us tread scientific journals on a regular basis and are used to assessing evidence.
The fact that I believe the McCanns to be innocent does not mean I have not looked at other possibilities...I have.
Based on the evidence I think the McCanns are innocent and it appears both investigating police forces agree

How do you know what the police think en masse, as regards this case ?

For all you know, they are seeking to eliminate abduction, as some do believe.

[stephen25000]

You have made a gross error...it was the Portuguese who dismissed woke and wandered.....we do not know exactly why but they may well have facts we are not privy to

They said it was unlikely.

Not the same as eliminating that possibility.

[Mr Gray]

They said it was unlikely.

Not the same as eliminating that possibility.

No...they said it was HIGHLY unlikely......which makes it highly unlikely

[stephen25000]

No...they said it was HIGHLY unlikely......which makes it highly unlikely

It does not mean impossible.

Now tell me davel, what is going to happen if no proof is found of a third party entering the apartment on may the 3 rd 2007 ?

[Miss Taken Identity]

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

We are not sure, but apparently, according to Sadie, mentioned on another thread- MBM was abducted because she had a jewish name, and who else do we know is jewish. Yes Jesus was jewish. See the connection with knights templar?

Do your homework Jassi 

[Mr Gray]

It does not mean impossible.

Now tell me davel, what is going to happen if no proof is found of a third party entering the apartment on may the 3 rd 2007 ?

No prof does not mean no one entered....another fact

[Angelo222]

It does not mean impossible.

Now tell me davel, what is going to happen if no proof is found of a third party entering the apartment on may the 3 rd 2007 ?

There is no proof of an intruder and Redwood destroyed Tanner's attempt to establish one.

[G-Unit]

You have made a gross error...it was the Portuguese who dismissed woke and wandered.....we do not know exactly why but they may well have facts we are not privy to

Really? A C Rowley;

"In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life"

[Mr Gray]

There is no proof of an intruder and Redwood destroyed Tanner's attempt to establish one.

The fact that woke and wandered has been deemed highly unlikely and in my opinion the parents are not suspects means an intruder is highly likely........

Caveat added

[Mr Gray]

Really? A C Rowley;

"In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life"

It was the archiving report which deemed woke and wandered highly unlikely