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

[G-Unit]

This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo. 

[The General]

This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo.

Having re-read this post, I actually disagree. There's every point in discussing how it might have been done. We're always being accused of being 'illogical' when we don't believe the official narrative, yet however diligently researched and, subsequently, eloquently purported, here we have a theory that, even on my first reading with fresh eyes, has more holes than a horse trader's mule.

[Brietta]

Having re-read this post, I actually disagree. There's every point in discussing how it might have been done. We're always being accused of being 'illogical' when we don't believe the official narrative, yet however diligently researched and, subsequently, eloquently purported, here we have a theory that, even on my first reading with fresh eyes, has more holes than a horse trader's mule.

I like the sound of that ... give us your first shot ... doesn't need to be an epistle ... just something we can discuss in context and structured for debate.

[G-Unit]

Having re-read this post, I actually disagree. There's every point in discussing how it might have been done. We're always being accused of being 'illogical' when we don't believe the official narrative, yet however diligently researched and, subsequently, eloquently purported, here we have a theory that, even on my first reading with fresh eyes, has more holes than a horse trader's mule.

It has been attempted, but there are no facts to discuss imo.  Opinions can''t be proved or disproved.

[The General]

I like the sound of that ... give us your first shot ... doesn't need to be an epistle ... just something we can discuss in context and structured for debate.

Well I would, of course, but I don't believe it either.

[Angelo222]

I have some sympathy with Sadie's theory but it ultimately relies on the Tanner sighting being that of an abductor. However, as both SY and the PJ have recently gone on record to say that Tannerman was an innocent tourist and so irrelevant, I can see no basis for it being true.

I must add that I don't believe that the man identified by SY was the man Tanner saw.

[Brietta]

I have some sympathy with Sadie's theory but it ultimately relies on the Tanner sighting being that of an abductor. However, as both SY and the PJ have recently gone on record to say that Tannerman was an innocent tourist and so irrelevant, I can see no basis for it being true.

I must add that I don't believe that the man identified by SY was the man Tanner saw.

I don't think that is exactly what Scotland Yard said and as far as the Judicial police are concerned they are very enigmatic at the best of times.
However they are looking for an abductor by all accounts and they are looking hard enough to have allocated more personnel to the endeavour ... so they are very serious about  about whatever it is they are doing.

Snip
(Unknown Man's VO) - It was the second case in the Algarve where the answers were missing, in Maddie's case no one gave up. The process ended up being archived, and then re-opened, it was public and now is once again sealed. It was then sent to Porto, to be analysed by another team, that it was now reinforced with more resources. The PJ admits that they may be able to shed light on the mystery, they believe they can prove what happened to Maddie.  ~  Translation by Morais

[Brietta]

Well I would, of course, but I don't believe it either.

With respect I think that is a cop out.  You made a firm statement criticising Sadie's theory which either you are unable to substantiate or you just can't be bothered.

Sadie doesn't mind constructive criticism and indeed encourages it.  I believe she is open to amending either to add to it or to subtract from it. 
Quite a pity you seem to be averse to taking that on board ~ could have been of some interest. as we haven't added anything to this thread in the light of recent developments.

[Venturi Swirl]

This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo.

When it is proved there will be little point in discussing how it may have been done as that will have already been established by the police and the court.  What would you permit us to discuss then?

[sadie]

This theory is only of interest to those who share it's unproven assumption; that Madeleine McCann was anducted. Until that's proved there's little point in discussing how it might have been done imo.

I am surprised that a person of your undoubted intellect could say such an inane thing.

Of course they have to have theories and test them.   In a case like this, there is very little else.



Sling out a few more challenges to the theory, Gunit: let's see if we can further progress it.

I am not sure that I am up to it atm tho

[Brietta]

When it is proved there will be little point in discussing how it may have been done as that will have already been established by the police and the court.  What would you permit us to discuss then?

It seems Amaral's unproven assumptions which I think were largely discredited in jig time after he was sacked from the case ... remain flavour of the past twelve years.

So on that basis I think sensible and more importantly ~ discussion which is not designed to harm and castigate anyone (with the obvious exception of the abductor presently being sought by the police) is worth thinking about.

[The General]

With respect I think that is a cop out.  You made a firm statement criticising Sadie's theory which either you are unable to substantiate or you just can't be bothered.

Sadie doesn't mind constructive criticism and indeed encourages it.  I believe she is open to amending either to add to it or to subtract from it. 
Quite a pity you seem to be averse to taking that on board ~ could have been of some interest. as we haven't added anything to this thread in the light of recent developments.

If you read back a few posts you will see that I already did make a few points, but was quickly shut down as 'it's already been discussed'. So what's the point. No kop out here, queen.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It seems Amaral's unproven assumptions which I think were largely discredited in jig time after he was sacked from the case ... remain flavour of the past twelve years.

So on that basis I think sensible and more importantly ~ discussion which is not designed to harm and castigate anyone (with the obvious exception of the abductor presently being sought by the police) is worth thinking about.

Oh YOU get to decide what can and Can't be discussed- wow how the mighty have grown.

Questioning the behaviour of the parents is not about harming them it is about finding out the real truth! The real victim is Madeleine- NOT the parents, they can stick up for themselves, AND BOY do they do that and then some!

 Maddie can't ask questions about what has happened to her can she?


Sadies theory was chucked out by the police- end of.

where is the evidence that the PJ are addning more officers and seeking an abductor. Word is -SY are looking at a scapegoat. 

[G-Unit]

Oh YOU get to decide what can and Can't be discussed- wow how the mighty have grown.

Questioning the behaviour of the parents is not about harming them it is about finding out the real truth! The real victim is Madeleine- NOT the parents, they can stick up for themselves, AND BOY do they do that and then some!

 Maddie can't ask questions about what has happened to her can she?


Sadies theory was chucked out by the police- end of.

where is the evidence that the PJ are addning more officers and seeking an abductor. Word is -SY are looking at a scapegoat.

It was in a newspaper. You can't argue with that. 

[Venturi Swirl]

It was in a newspaper. You can't argue with that. 

Is there any evidence to contradict the newspaper report?  Have the police issued a denial?  Just using some oft used sceptic logic there btw.