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

[Wonderfulspam]

That is the problem with it all, Sadie, as far as some are concerned the theory outlined in Dr Amaral’s book and documentary is writ in tablets of stone and cannot be contradicted.

They are stuck in a time warp and are incapable of assimilating and taking other facts and the statements from witnesses on the ground at the time which don’t fit that theory into consideration to think things through for themselves.

Many questions remain for me with the Smith sighting … based on the activities noted prior to and in the aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance … and I keep changing my mind about the actual value of it when and if other suggestions are made.

I agree with your thoughts on what may have happened on the night Madeleine vanished and if anything new presents no doubt we will be capable of thinking about that too.

I find it regrettable that those who cannot challenge your theories choose instead to personalise their criticism.

Mine differs from his.

And there really is nothing to challenge in sadies theory, bundleman is in the bin, end of.

[pathfinder73]

A theory is not absolute Faith. 

That is why it is called a theory, rather than a fact



But there are indicators that my theory or  parts of it  are quite likely correct.  Does that trouble you?

Theories have to be based on evidence not plucked out of thin air. There's no evidence of a getaway car. Who would seriously park a getaway car opposite the entrance (and secondary reception) to where they were? Absolutely nobody that's who! Parking outside 5A on the road they walked to regular check is very risky. If you're talking about a watcher then he had to be at the tapas bar to see exactly when they were leaving the table to have any real chance of informing others of their movements. Very unlikely due to time constraint and being seen acting suspiciously by other tapas bar witnesses.

[ferryman]

There is no point in 'opening your mind' sadie if your theory has nothing concrete to sustain it. Wishful thinking rather than hard facts does not a believable theory make !

You should know, Faith ...

[stephen25000]

That is the problem with it all, Sadie, as far as some are concerned the theory outlined in Dr Amaral’s book and documentary is writ in tablets of stone and cannot be contradicted.

They are stuck in a time warp and are incapable of assimilating and taking other facts and the statements from witnesses on the ground at the time which don’t fit that theory into consideration to think things through for themselves.

Many questions remain for me with the Smith sighting … based on the activities noted prior to and in the aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance … and I keep changing my mind about the actual value of it when and if other suggestions are made.

I agree with your thoughts on what may have happened on the night Madeleine vanished and if anything new presents no doubt we will be capable of thinking about that too.

I find it regrettable that those who cannot challenge your theories choose instead to personalise their criticism.

'personalise their criticism'   

sadie has her 'theories' which she claims have been given to Belgravia Police Station.

Is there any proof of this ?

[Brietta]

Theories have to be based on evidence not plucked out of thin air. There's no evidence of a getaway car. Who would seriously park a getaway car opposite the entrance (and secondary reception) to where they were? Absolutely nobody that's who! Parking outside 5A on the road they walked to regular check is very risky. If you're talking about a watcher then he had to be at the tapas bar to see exactly when they were leaving the table to have any real chance of informing others of their movements. Very unlikely due to time constraint and being seen acting suspiciously by other tapas bar witnesses.

 ... and who would give a second glance to ... or even remember seeing ... a service vehicle close by, which could have been picking people up or dropping them off ... or picking up laundry ... or delivering supplies?

I think the one with the huge neon sign on it saying KIDNAPPERS-R-US was probably in the garage.

[jassi]

I guess that would all depend upon what time of day this van was normally seen in the vicinity

[Brietta]

I guess that would all depend upon what time of day this van was normally seen in the vicinity

How would holidaymakers know what was normal routine for service personnel? I don't spend my time on holiday working out the operational circumstances of my accommodation and I don't know anyone who does.

Flight arrivals and departures can be delayed … so who would take note of a van used for transportation?

A catering vehicle parked near a catering outlet would probably excite no interest.

There were unoccupied flats in the block which were not checked; Madeleine could have been taken to one of those and taken out in a bundle of laundry to the laundry van at a suitable time.

We just do not know ... everything is a risky strategy ... but so is taking a child.


For example on the 7th May the GNR dogs showed interest as follows …

>>snip<<
At about 23.00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun.

After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5 A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behaviour, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before.

Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odour there.

It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time.

Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behaviour in the same places as Rex had done.

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm

[sadie]

Potentially there would have been three points of lighting for that balcony, but only one was partially effective

1)  Immediately to the west of the drive in to block 5 car park, there is a steet lamp, but its light was blocked because the lamp head was within the head of the tree adjacent ... further the very heavy foliage around the NE end of block 5 car park completely blanked out any light to the balcony from that street lamp. 
NO LIGHT FROM THAT !

2)  On the corner that Tannerman was walking towards, there is again a street lamp.  This is fairly close BUT from viewing GE street scene, I am confidently able to say that NO direct light reached the balcony, because there were three mighty cupressus trees completely blocking the light from this street lamp.

3)  The only lamp that possibly cast any light on to the balconies was the street lamp immediately across the road from flat 5 patio area.  However the balconies were recessed back about  a metre and a half and it is duifficult with any accuracy to measure whether the light hit the balcony at its NW corner or not.   And the position of this meant that what would be quite a deep shadow was cast over almost the whole balcony area with maybe just the NW tip of the balcony lit.

The watcher could not view the alleyway corner from a shadow area.  I doubt that any potential watcher would have gone into the (possibly) lit NW corner to be illuminated for anyone who happened to be looking.

He couldn't see that alleyway corner where Jerry and Jez chatted without hanging out over the balcony into the light of the street lamp.  No, IMO, having seen Gerry coming down the steps he hot footed it thru block 6 , down the steps and garden , thru the gate into the little car park immediately behind (opposite Taps reception building).

There he had the getaway vehicle parked

Getaway was foiled by Gerry and Jezzes presence and by Jane walking up R Francisco Gentils Martins to witness Tannerman carrying Madeleine off.  The watcher / director / getaway driver hot footed it in the opposite direction (south)


OK John this is the second reason why The Watcher diden't see Gerry and Jez.  When he hid in the shadow he couldn't physically see that Alleyway corner.   There is another resaon if you wish me to go over it ... but I think two will do

[John]

I agree, the balconies immediately opposite 5a have a great view of the apartment but we must remember that in May 2007 the car park to the front of 5a was surrounded by tall mature trees.

By the way, I moved your post to your own theory thread.

[Robittybob1]

I think you will find that the balcony is in the stair well, and with access to anyone.

I find it strange that they would bother to build a stairwell with balconies.  Was this concept ever proven true?

[Robittybob1]

....
snip ....


The abductor had been skulking in/near the recess to the front door, which was in near blackness .   As the abductor almost certainly had a key, once he got the signal, he was in and out like a shot, only stopping to open the window and blinds. 
....SNIP/-  ,.....

How do you think the abductors would get a key?  Are you thinking in terms of ex-Ocean Club staff?

[Robittybob1]

Thank you for presenting your ideas on where the alleged abductor went to Sadie.

In order that everyone can see your theory at a glance I have produced a new plan.   I haven't personally visited Praia de Luz yet so am restricted by the limitations presented by Google Maps and the photos taken by the Google van.

I am assuming that the abductor could have gone through the hedge by the two satellite dishes.

Has anyone thought it possible that the person in the Tanner sighting actually entered the car park to the North of Block 6?  For Jane doesn't say she saw him still walking along the path when she go to the top of the road.

[Robittybob1]

Scent from shoes? Whose shoes?

If Madeleine wandered she would have been in bare feet on stones hence leaving a trail that can be followed even days later.

[Robittybob1]

Why do you pursue such an ill informed  attitude towards evidence stephen?  What evidence would you like me to place before you in relation to abduction?

Does the evidence that Madeleine was seen by many as being alive and well before 7pm yet gone from her bedroom at 10pm hold any relevance for you?

Does the fact that her parents put her to bed along with her two siblings before they departed for their evening meal at 8.30pm yet she had gone from the room at 10pm hold some significance in your black and white world?

Does the fully open shutter and window have some relevance for you stephen given they were closed when last checked by several individuals?  Not the sort of thing a 4 year old child could have done is it?

What about the police search stephen?  The land, sea and air searches?  Who were they looking for stephen and at huge expense?

Why did the PJ alert the Spanish authorities to keep a look out for a missing child at the frontiers stephen?


 Stephen....could I suggest something before you make your next post.  Look up the meaning of the words "ABDUCTION" and "EVIDENCE" and then attempt to put them together in a positive form because frankly your claim that their is no evidence of an abduction is looking pretty silly.

Nil points!

Great post.  Did Stephen do this?

[Robittybob1]

.... snip ....
Sadie, can you explain how the police ignored Mrs Carpenter, and when? Do you even know when this info was relayed to the PJ? Because in a related previous post IIRC you said had thry not ignored her Madeleone could haveen home within hours!  And what you think they should have done about her saying she vaguely remembered someone calling Madeleine, and who you think that was and why?

In anyone's understanding what is reported by Caroline Carpenter happened before 10:00 PM.  IMO it would be highly significant if someone who knew Madeleine by name was calling her prior to Kate's alarm.