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

[G-Unit]

Please let me make it clear, i have had no contact with The Mccanns nor SY with this theory.   As far as I know, they know nothing of it. 

It is what it is, merely a theory, but it works.
It would have been flawless as far as i can see, had it not been for that untimely chat by Gerry and Jez.  And, of course, Jane appearing unexpectedly on the scene. 

Russell and Janes daughter was unexpectedly poorly and frequent visits (and stays) were necessary.   Had the apartment been watched on previous days, when the children had slept niormally with no illness, the watcher would likely have formed a fairly accurate time list of comings and goings.

That time list was blown by unexpected trips by Jane and by Jez happening to appear as Gerry was leaving 5A.  They were both out of the vision of The watcher because the balcony was set back about a metre and a half behind a wing of block 6.  This blocked his view of the chat.


This exact scenario may well have happened and this theory shows how it could have been done so easily.

If nothing else, it blows all the nonsensical talk, over the years, about "no-one could have done it in the time" sky high.  An abduction could easily have happened as illustrated by my mini theory.

It also irons out a few of the worries about what happened such as Gerry insisting that his chat with Jez took place on the other side of the road.

I fully accept that this theory might not be what happened, but it ticks all the boxes.
Unless someone can come up with something that disproves it, it should rernain om the table IMO


AIMHO

I will agree that the theory can 'remain on the table' but as it 'might not be what happened' it should not be used in discussions as if it is what happened.

[slartibartfast]

This thread has now become a parody of itself.

Highly unlikely => impossible/implausible vis a vis woke and wandered.
Highly unlikely => probable/plausible in Sadie's Theory.
   

Million to one chances happen nine time out of ten.

[Robittybob1]

Million to one chances happen nine time out of ten.

except when you want to win the Lotto.

[stephen25000]

So far nobody has given any pointers to either accidental death or walkling out of the apartment happening.   I can understand some people wondering the accidental death thoughts when it was being spreading it around that Keela and Eddie had found evidence of death .  But now that has been conclusively found incorrect, there are absolutely no piointers, no evidence and it is time to give uip on thoughts based upon wrong perceptions

Give me some sound pointers and I will look again



As to the watchers, I cannot believe that you have asked the question.

We have several different people who have come forward to state that they saw a man watching the Mccann apartment.  Tasmin Silence twice saw him, and three other people also saw him.  It is all recorded on youtube video. 

With this ancient computer I cannot access videos atm, but it was the same video as the one where Jane Tanner disagrees with Gerry over the place that he and Jez were chatting .... and she ends up with tears coursing down her face as she recalls that maybe she could have prevented the alleged abduction of Madeleine had she realised what was going on before her eyes.  I think the video  is called "Cutting Edge" video

So give me some sound pointers, and I will look again.

I have addressed the 'watcher' issue before.

Merely looking at a building does not mean it was under surveillance. There were several apartments there, so what is this fixation as if there was only one.

Casual observation of people will reveal, remarkably enough, that people do look at buildings.

It doesn't mean they are burglars, kidnappers or paedophiles.

If you think that a 'watcher' would be acceptable evidence to take to court, then I think you need to think again.

A.I.M.H.O.

[jassi]

I have addressed the 'watcher' issue before.

Merely looking at a building does not mean it was under surveillance. There were several apartments there, so what is this fixation as if there was only one.

Casual observation of people will reveal, remarkably enough, that people do look at buildings.

It doesn't mean they are burglars, kidnappers or paedophiles.

If you think that a 'watcher' would be acceptable evidence to take to court, then I think you need to think again.

A.I.M.H.O.

Not sure it is even evidence, merely a person's perception and interpretation of an event.

[stephen25000]

Not sure it is even evidence, merely a person's perception and interpretation of an event.

Precisely Jassi.

[misty]

You have no evidence of a watcher. Smithman exists and that is evidence. You have no evidence only make-believe.

Unfortunately for some, an unidentified Smithman will always be the thorn in the side of those who don't believe an abduction occurred.

[stephen25000]

Unfortunately for some, an unidentified Smithman will always be the thorn in the side of those who don't believe an abduction occurred.

Not really.

 

[misty]

Not really.

I'd really like you to elaborate on that answer but I predict you won't.

[jassi]

Until the identity of Smithman is proven, it is presumptuous to assume that he was an abductor.

[G-Unit]

I'd really like you to elaborate on that answer but I predict you won't.

Perhaps you could explain your 'thorn in the side' comment?

[Eleanor]

Please stop the unpleasantness.  It adds nothing to the discussion.

[misty]

Perhaps you could explain your 'thorn in the side' comment?

In the absence of conclusive evidence to implicate anyone else in Madeleine's disappearance, the non-identification of Smithman + female child will always be there as a defence tool.

[G-Unit]

In the absence of conclusive evidence to implicate anyone else in Madeleine's disappearance, the non-identification of Smithman + female child will always be there as a defence tool.

With which the prosecution can counter using various statements suggesting that the alarm was raised before 10pm.

[jassi]

In the absence of conclusive evidence to implicate anyone else in Madeleine's disappearance, the non-identification of Smithman + female child will always be there as a defence tool.

In these days of transgender, is there any certainty that the child was female?