This will not turn into a Bash Sadie Thread.
This will not turn into a Bash Sadie Thread.
This will not turn into a Bash Sadie Thread.It is my intention and hope that this will NOT turn into a bash Sadie thread.
It is my intention and hope that this will NOT turn into a bash Sadie thread.
There are aspects of Sadie's theorem that I find valid and relevant. There are aspects upon which I disagree.
Before the thread goes much further, I would like to offer Sadie the opportunity to black ball this thread. If she thinks it is a bad idea from the start, I am happy that Sadie is given the opportunity to rule on whether it should live or die. And I will abide by her decision.
If the thread continues, I hope the mods will make very sure it is not a bash Sadie thread.
I am interested in the nuggets of gold that Sadie has turned up. These may well prove to be important.
IMO.
I'm not sure if it's on this thread or not.Thank you for this. This is excellent.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1327.0
@ShiningThank your for this.
See http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3542.305;wap2
Could we possibly have a thread on Sadie's theorem?Thank you SIL.
I am happy to cut and paste various bits and pieces that have appeared over various threads over the last few days that relate to this theorem.
There was something along the lines that Sadie's theorem was buried within some other thread. I cannot find that post.
I think some of the material Sadie has researched may be important in the Madeleine case.
This is not to say I agree with everything Sadie believes.
But I happen to think she may have unearthed some information that is relevant.
May we have a thread on Sadie's theorem? Like I said, I am happy to do the donkey work.
"To me the happenings below are potential evidence. ... as Carana puts it, a RED FLAGThe four are:
Why were the sightings up to and including the Porto area not looked at? Just ignored it seems, yet 4 abductions up there in the previous 14 years + several sightings of a little girl thought to be Madeleine in the region. Why weren't they looked at?
Why was processos 807-808 about a sighting in Porto and VN de Gaia unecessarily produced by Portimao PJ ?
This mysteriously produceed new Processos negates the earlier proper processos 809 which was written at the time and en situ up in Porto with full PJ source trail. It negates/changes the original Processos 809 in five ways IIRC.
Why did Portimao PJ decide to alter the original bonafide Processos 809 with stuff that appears unsound ? At least one item on the new processos appears totally untrue and I went up there to check it out. Walked that road of drop off on a boiling hot day just to check it out. It was incorrect ... no three storey house of anything like that number shown in the processos.
In fact the number quoted was almost certainly of a house knocked down up a bling alleyway. The land plus extra added to it made a large plot. A new Catholic church was in the process of being built there ...... and on the same plot of land there is a church attached Nursery and a School.
The new Portimao Processos almost seemed to be written to put the searcher off the scent. Five things ?wrong and over-ruling the processos written en situ by Porto Officers.
The drop off was just 2 miles crow flies to the first Porto area abduction of Jorge Sepulveda .... and my suspect spent time between the two.
SY found that interesting. Official paperwork which ties abductions, sightings and my suspect between the two, together in a distance of only two miles. Not in PdL but 300 miles North in the Porto area
809 is the processos that is totally bonafide. The other one seems to be pointing in the wrong direction on IIRC five counts.
To me, the sightings up to, and including the Porto area are potential evidence, yet it was all ignored ... and even strangely amended. I wonder why ?"
This is a post on here by Sadie on 15 Feb 2016.
I can chase down lots of the info in this post, should I so choose.
The bit that really interested me was 4 children had gone missing, seemingly in the Porto area, in 14 years leading up to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
One was Jorge Sepulveda.
Who are the other 3?
I guess I need to read through 30+ pages of the old thread.
The four are:Do you think that that has, in any way, a connection to Casa Pia "The scandal broke in September 2002"? I am simply asking because I am genuinely interested.
1) Jorge Sepulveda 1991
2) Claudia Alexandra Silva e sousa 1994
3) Rui Pedro Teixeira Mendoca 1998
4) Rui Manuel Correia Periera 1999
... and there was another little boy taken in the Algarve duruing the same period. My suspect has links to both the Porto area and to the Algarve.
He was
Rene Hasee 1996 Amoreiras Beach Aljezur on the Atlantic coast of the Algarve and just 18 or so miles crow flies from PdL
All these children were pre pubescent but older than Madeleine
However, Claudia was a very similar age to Joana Cipriano
And Rene, a very cute blond boy was just 6 years old. IMO with zero other abductions in mainland PT, he is the link between North and South abductions.
I read on a forum that a man, the son of an elite, had been picked up and questioned. He wasn't charged but let off and warned %#&%4%
The abductions stopped for five years then, until Joana C was taken in 2004 in the Algarve. then a foiled attempt on pretty little Carolina Santos on Christmas day 2006, followed just 4 months later by Madeleine
Now I really am going to bed. I am tired out
Nigh Night all
I have a question if anyone knows the answer. How dark is in at the beginning of May at 9.15pm? It seemed extremely dark during Edgar's reconstruction with Jane and Gerry. Russell didn't seem sure if it was completely dark at 9.30pm when he and Matthew checked, however.
According to this site: http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5&year=2007I haven't read the threads pointed out yet. I hope folks will bear in mind that ideas evolve over time, so the details of Sadie's theory, as stated by Sadie in the past, may not be the details of Sadie's theory, as at this point in time.
...sunset at Faro on 3 May 2007 was at 8.22pm.
That makes it about an hour before Jane Tanner's 'sighting' of someone (whether 'Crecheman' or someone else) at about 9.15pm. It would be pretty dark an hour after sunset (it gets darker more quickly the nearer you are to the equator), though of course it does get progressively slightly darker still until just before dawn.
SADIE'S THOREM / THEOREM / THEORY
I would like to understand what it is. I appreciate it involves the thought that the abductor might be someone who had been guilty of previous abduction/burglary attempts in the area. But have I understood correctly that this is what Sadie actually says happened (I have had a look at the other thread):
1. A bloke was eyeing up Apartment G5A having already decided to abduct Madeleine
2. He had an accomplice waiting in a car in the car parking area nearest to G5A
3. He didn't abduct Madeleine after seeing Gerry and Kate leave their apartment at about 8.30pm
4. His plan was slightly affected after seeing Gerry and Jes Wilkins talking in the lane
5. He had an entry key card
6. He decided to swiftly 'nip in' (actual quote by Sadie) and abduct Madeleine
7. He decided for an unknown reason (maybe as a 'red herring') to lift up both the windows and the shutters even though he had an entry key/card
8. He quickly took Madeleine to the waiting car
9. The two of them drover off with Madeleine.
If I have understood this correctly, I would like to ask Sadie these questions:
A. Is there any forensic or circumstantial evidence that Madeleine was abducted, apart from the claims of the McCanns and their friends (including Jane Tanner)?
B. If so, what is it?
C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?
D. Was 'Tannerman' really 'Crecheman'?
E. If the abductor and his driver drove off with Madeleine, does this make the 'Smithman' sighting, at best, totally irrelevant?
I haven't read the threads pointed out yet. I hope folks will bear in mind that ideas evolve over time, so the details of Sadie's theorem, as stated by Sadie in the past, may not be the details of Sadie's theorem, as at this point in time.
I would like to address point C, in the context of a pre-planned abduction. "C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?"
If I had a key and went in/out the front door, would I open the window and the shutter, to attempt to conceal the fact that I had a key? My motivation in concealing the fact that I had a key is obvious. I don't want them looking at who had keys. And no, I didn't know the patio door was open OR I thought that route was so risky non-one would believe. I simply wanted to conceal that I had a key.
I would like to address point C, in the context of a pre-planned abduction. "C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?"
If I had a key and went in/out the front door, would I open the window and the shutter, to attempt to conceal the fact that I had a key? My motivation in concealing the fact that I had a key is obvious. I don't want them looking at who had keys. And no, I didn't know the patio door was open OR I thought that route was so risky non-one would believe. I simply wanted to conceal that I had a key.
I haven't read the threads pointed out yet. I hope folks will bear in mind that ideas evolve over time, so the details of Sadie's theorem, as stated by Sadie in the past, may not be the details of Sadie's theorem, as at this point in time.
I would like to address point C, in the context of a pre-planned abduction. "C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?"
If I had a key and went in/out the front door, would I open the window and the shutter, to attempt to conceal the fact that I had a key? My motivation in concealing the fact that I had a key is obvious. I don't want them looking at who had keys. And no, I didn't know the patio door was open OR I thought that route was so risky non-one would believe. I simply wanted to conceal that I had a key.
That is a probability.
Mr Amaral was at pains in his documentary to illustrate that it was not possible to open the lock on the wooden door with a credit card. Why? ... I have no idea.
If a key had been used the person using it could have been traced either as having access or having been given it by someone who had access. It would be logical to play that fact down.
Other reasons could be
- an escape route
- to pass Madeleine out
Didn't one of the Ocean Club workers briefly lose a set of keys? Who followed up that?
At the risk of leaving your fingerprints all over the window frames and shutters? I hardly think so.
But...unless...the abductor was wearing gloves??
This must be point 10 of Sadie's theory, then:
10. The abductor was wearing gloves.
Well, don't confuse 'sadie bashing' with her theories getting a bashing as you all seem to do on here. When anyone challenges the abduction theory we are accused of bashing the parents and harming their twins. Bit rich really.
Yes, I for one will always challenge theories, regardless from hence they come. If they are so great and unbeatable I will concede and congratulate..... but, never gonna happen, as they are outragous anyway.
I think we should surely be able to ask Sadie what evidence there is of an abduction apart from the evidence of the McCanns and their friends.
Is that not a reasonable question to ask?
One of the mods requested that I should tidy up the thread title.
I did not realise the issue was a misspelling. So I checked the meaning of theorem and theory. Basically, the difference is that a theorem is accepted as true, while a theory is a model of what happens but still to be proved or disproved.
On this basis, I have changed the thread title to Sadie's theory.
My apologies to all for a double blooper.
Accuse be damned.
Anyone who denies the reality and truth of abduction (as at least part of the explanation of what happened to Madeleine) flies in the face of the Portuguese prosecutors, Joao Carlos, who wrote the final PJ report, Andy Redwood, who said Madeleine was abducted from her bed in a criminal act by (a) stranger(s) and anyone else who has properly examined the evidence.
That is not an 'accusation'.
The only cautionary note I would sound is that we can't (altogether) dismiss the possibility of the second enquiry having unearthed evidence, at present, unknown more widely that might change the picture.
But that is pure speculation ....
That is a fact.
Kudos to SIL for giving Sadie's theory an airing.
I think we should surely be able to ask Sadie what evidence there is of an abduction apart from the evidence of the McCanns and their friends.
Is that not a reasonable question to ask?
No it isn't.[/quote]
I am not allowed on this forum to ask another poster what evidence she has for a statement?
I think we should surely be able to ask Sadie what evidence there is of an abduction apart from the evidence of the McCanns and their friends.
Is that not a reasonable question to ask?
It is my intention and hope that this will NOT turn into a bash Sadie thread.
There are aspects of Sadie's theorem that I find valid and relevant. There are aspects upon which I disagree.
Before the thread goes much further, I would like to offer Sadie the opportunity to black ball this thread. If she thinks it is a bad idea from the start, I am happy that Sadie is given the opportunity to rule on whether it should live or die. And I will abide by her decision.
If the thread continues, I hope the mods will make very sure it is not a bash Sadie thread.
I am interested in the nuggets of gold that Sadie has turned up. These may well prove to be important.
IMO.
No it isn't.
We have the prosecutors' report (archiving dispatch) which affirms the truth of abduction, and we have the final PJ report, which dismisses woke and wandered and affirms abduction.
There is nothing in the files which sustains a theory of parental involvement (or involvement of any of their friends) in the disappearance of Madeleine, aside from the Almeida report which is superseded by the final PJ report, written by Joaoa Carlos.
According to this site: http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5&year=2007Good morning Blonk. I am short of time but quickly:
...sunset at Faro on 3 May 2007 was at 8.22pm.
That makes it about an hour before Jane Tanner's 'sighting' of someone (whether 'Crecheman' or someone else) at about 9.15pm. It would be pretty dark an hour after sunset (it gets darker more quickly the nearer you are to the equator), though of course it does get progressively slightly darker still until just before dawn.
SADIE'S THOREM / THEOREM / THEORY
I would like to understand what it is. I appreciate it involves the thought that the abductor might be someone who had been guilty of previous abduction/burglary attempts in the area. But have I understood correctly that this is what Sadie actually says happened (I have had a look at the other thread):
1. A bloke was eyeing up Apartment G5A having already decided to abduct Madeleine
2. He had an accomplice waiting in a car in the car parking area nearest to G5A
3. He didn't abduct Madeleine after seeing Gerry and Kate leave their apartment at about 8.30pm
4. His plan was slightly affected after seeing Gerry and Jes Wilkins talking in the lane
5. He had an entry key card
6. He decided to swiftly 'nip in' (actual quote by Sadie) and abduct Madeleine
7. He decided for an unknown reason (maybe as a 'red herring') to lift up both the windows and the shutters even though he had an entry key/card
8. He quickly took Madeleine to the waiting car
9. The two of them drover off with Madeleine.
If I have understood this correctly, I would like to ask Sadie these questions:
A. Is there any forensic or circumstantial evidence that Madeleine was abducted, apart from the claims of the McCanns and their friends (including Jane Tanner)?
B. If so, what is it?
C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?
D. Was 'Tannerman' really 'Crecheman'?
E. If the abductor and his driver drove off with Madeleine, does this make the 'Smithman' sighting, at best, totally irrelevant?
Untrue, both the abduction theory and the woke and wandered into trouble theory are both very alive according to the little evidence which exists.
The AG report is nine years past its sell-by date but that said, the report did state that the parents lost the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence by the refusal of the tapas group to cooperate with Portuguese police and take part in a reconstruction of events.
Sadie has visited the area several times I understand and has garnered some interesting material. I see no reason why she shouldn't be allowed to share it in order to persuade of either theory.
The little girl is not Madeleine, that has been refuted some time ago.you DONT KNOW thta stephen.
As to the rest, guests reading this forum who are interested in this case can check out facts for themselves.
you DONT KNOW thta stephen.
why are you adverse to my putting Blonk on the right track in what i said ?
Do you think that that has, in any way, a connection to Casa Pia "The scandal broke in September 2002"? I am simply asking because I am genuinely interested.I have been to Casa Pia to have a look at it. Attached to the truly magnificent Jeronimos Manastry but in seperate grounds across the road, the living accomodation is in a very pleasant, white stuccoed, fairly modern house set back a little from the main road. It is on the corner and as i walked around the corner and saw the gate thru which the Doctors red sports car arrived, the hairs on the back of my neck rose. I couldn't stop them. Then next door to the gate was what i think was Bibis house. This had a mighty tree that desperately needed pruning. It arched rightover with its head touching the middle of the side road. I think Bibi was in jail and greenery grows amazingly fast in PT
I haven't read the threads pointed out yet. I hope folks will bear in mind that ideas evolve over time, so the details of Sadie's theory, as stated by Sadie in the past, may not be the details of Sadie's theory, as at this point in time.
I would like to address point C, in the context of a pre-planned abduction. "C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?"
If I had a key and went in/out the front door, would I open the window and the shutter, to attempt to conceal the fact that I had a key? My motivation in concealing the fact that I had a key is obvious. I don't want them looking at who had keys. And no, I didn't know the patio door was open OR I thought that route was so risky non-one would believe. I simply wanted to conceal that I had a key.
At the risk of leaving your fingerprints all over the window frames and shutters? I hardly think so.Probably was but he could open and shut that door merely using the key. No need to use his hands. The window was probably opened from the outside to check the scene before entering and prints wiped, but may have been opened from inside with gloves.
But...unless...the abductor was wearing gloves??
This must be point 10 of Sadie's theory, then:
10. The abductor was wearing gloves.
I have a question if anyone knows the answer. How dark is in at the beginning of May at 9.15pm? It seemed extremely dark during Edgar's reconstruction with Jane and Gerry. Russell didn't seem sure if it was completely dark at 9.30pm when he and Matthew checked, however.I remember that the moon didn't rise until about 10pm.
Probably was but he could open and shut that door merely using the key. No need to use his hands. The window was probably opened from the outside to check the scene before entering and prints wiped, but may have been opened from inside with gloves.@Sadie So does one version of your theory start with the shutter and window being opened from outside?
Shining in Luz found interesting hand marks on the protuding piece of the window outside.
I have gone thru this already, within the last couple of days, Blonk. Do I need to keep repeating myself?
I think we should surely be able to ask Sadie what evidence there is of an abduction apart from the evidence of the McCanns and their friends.
Is that not a reasonable question to ask?
I am happy to allow this thread as long as Sadie is in agreement.It's OK by me admin, but I am old and slow. I may not get round to answering all the questions. I cant stay up until the early hours every night and I have demands on my time in the day.
@Sadie So does one version of your theory start with the shutter and window being opened from outside?I am open minded pegasus
Probably was but he could open and shut that door merely using the key. No need to use his hands. The window was probably opened from the outside to check the scene before entering and prints wiped, but may have been opened from inside with gloves.
Shining in Luz found interesting hand marks on the protuding piece of the window outside.
On woke and wandered what information supersedes Joao Carlos' comment in the final PJ report that that possibility had been considered but discounted?
ETA: Delighted to see Sadie's theory explored.
Several retired senior detectives are of the opinion the evidence could point to woke and wandered just as readily as the claimed abduction. If it is eventually established that Madeleine did get out of the apartment and met with an accident the McCanns could very well face prosecution so it is in their interest to push the abduction story.
I have gone thru this already, within the last couple of days, Blonk. Do I need to keep repeating myself?
Let's be honest Sadie, there is no actual evidence consistent with an abduction is there?
That is roundly dishonest ....
This may or may not clarify things re light conditions re the Tanner sighting.
I have visited the scene on a 3 May to get my head round something that was intriguing me. I was outside 5A at 9.10 to 9.15pm.
The darkness was increasing. The last elements of my normal colour vision were dropping, reverting to a near total B&W mode.
I did not check cloud cover, or how much starlight or moonlight there was.
The dominant light was from street lamps. As these are sodium, there was still some colour, predominantly yellow.
I don't know the precise date the old street lamps were replaced by new ones, but the new ones were in situ on my visit.
Compared to my eyesight, Jane Tanner's vision may the same, better or worse.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Jane Tanner would be able to see a man carrying a child, at that time of night, using the man's position and Jane's position.
Whether Jane could see enough to give the details she did depends on wobble factors. The eyesight comparison. The lighting conditions. The weather conditions. And precise timing. Just a few minutes earlier I still had enough colour vision to correct for the street lamps. Just a few minutes later, and I couldn't.
Let's be honest Sadie, there is no actual evidence consistent with an abduction is there?
Of course there is
Think about it
Go on, without reference to SY, OG or Redwood, spill the beans.
Go on, without reference to SY, OG or Redwood, spill the beans.
Go on, without reference to SY, OG or Redwood, spill the beans.
Let's face it, it's only Slartibarfast (and one or two others of similar ilk) who know better than any of them ....
Indeed, let's the substance to evidence of abduction, not blind rhetoric.
Martin Smith is convinced he saw Madeleine's abductor; equally convinced the McCanns are innocent.
We've had the verbatim quote somewhere upstream on this forum.
Evidence of abduction.
Much else besides ....
What IS there evidence of, Stephen?
Martin Smith is convinced he saw Madeleine's abductor; equally convinced the McCanns are innocent.
We've had the verbatim quote somewhere upstream on this forum.
Evidence of abduction.
Much else besides ....
Martin Smith is convinced he saw Madeleine's abductor; equally convinced the McCanns are innocent.
We've had the verbatim quote somewhere upstream on this forum.
Evidence of abduction.
Much else besides ....
There is absolutely nothing to connect Smithman or Tannerman with an abductor, it is purely conjecture. Similarly, there is no physical evidence which connects an open shutter and window with an abduction, not an iota. And since the only prints found on the window glass belonged to Kate McCann and a policeman, we can rule out the latter.
I have been wondering what time the street lights come on in May, now I know. Thank you. I have seen pictures at night with the new street lights which were installed pretty quickly, I understand. They certainly bathed the patio in light, but I don't think the old ones did; look how dark it is at the bottom of the steps where the flash of the camera doesn't reach. I haven't been able to find a street photo taken when the original street lights were still there;The street lights come on before it gets dark, so I would assume well before the Tanner sighting, otherwise it would be a bit dangerous around here.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_21_small1.jpg)
Let's be honest Sadie, there is no actual evidence consistent with an abduction is there?
The street lights come on before it gets dark, so I would assume well before the Tanner sighting, otherwise it would be a bit dangerous around here.
I think the photo you mean is due to the natural effect of the flash, dropping off with distance. Perhaps the camera kit was good enough to tackle indoor, outdoor at close range, outdoor at medium range, but I don't know. The one of the rear patio is picking up enough reflection from the rear garden wall to show that up, so why the flash doesn't seem to have reached the side wall near the foot of the steps is a puzzle.
The reason for the switch of street lamps is also a puzzle. I have little idea what the old spec was and what the new spec is. By that, it could be that the new ones are brighter, or less bright, or much the same. Typically in Portugal, if something like that works, it doesn't get replaced. The only real difference that I remember is that the old ones waste a lot of light by shining much of it up, whereas the new ones seem to be fitted with a reflector on top to spread more down.
I believe there is one of the old type at the Smithman sighting. I found the light adequate, despite descriptions of poor light. I'll see if I can wander down around the equivalent time and grab a photo or 2.
Going back to the PJ photo, isn't the yellow blob near the top the old light? To work out 100% accurately, what illumination there was, what was required was a photo of the same view, but without flash. Or one could go back, temporarily refit an old style one, and measure/photograph the light. However, I cannot see how HOLMES could work this out or flag it as an issue, so someone would need to raise it with OG.
@SIL. The gardens in Block 5 seem to 'belong' to the ground floor apartments and to be accessed from their balconies. Is there a way for those in the upper apartments to enter and exit through the gardens, do you know? I'd like to know if it applies to Block 6 also. Sorry to keep asking questions of you, but you're nearer than me ha ha.I have no problems in answering such questions.
I have no problems in answering such questions.
My worry is that a great deal of the latter posts in this thread appear to me to be off topic, and therefore are at risk of being pruned. You might do better to find a more appropriate thread.
The gardens in block 4, block 5 and block 6 all belong to the ground floor occupants. Anyone on an upper floor could go down, round and access from the rear, but in that case it would be trespass.
Block 6 is slightly different. The flat at the east end appears to have no rear gate that I can see, but instead seems to have a gate at the front/side. The west end does not appear to be gated off, so some or all of that could be used as an observation point of 5A. Anyone casually smoking there would simply look like someone has just popped out into fresh air.
For all those who didn't read Angeles post properly
Angelo said no evidence consistent with abduction
The fact that Maddie is missing is consistent with abduction
That's like finding a dead body being proof of murder.
The street lights come on before it gets dark, so I would assume well before the Tanner sighting, otherwise it would be a bit dangerous around here.
I think the photo you mean is due to the natural effect of the flash, dropping off with distance. Perhaps the camera kit was good enough to tackle indoor, outdoor at close range, outdoor at medium range, but I don't know. The one of the rear patio is picking up enough reflection from the rear garden wall to show that up, so why the flash doesn't seem to have reached the side wall near the foot of the steps is a puzzle.
The reason for the switch of street lamps is also a puzzle. I have little idea what the old spec was and what the new spec is. By that, it could be that the new ones are brighter, or less bright, or much the same. Typically in Portugal, if something like that works, it doesn't get replaced. The only real difference that I remember is that the old ones waste a lot of light by shining much of it up, whereas the new ones seem to be fitted with a reflector on top to spread more down.
I believe there is one of the old type at the Smithman sighting. I found the light adequate, despite descriptions of poor light. I'll see if I can wander down around the equivalent time and grab a photo or 2.
Going back to the PJ photo, isn't the yellow blob near the top the old light? To work out 100% accurately, what illumination there was, what was required was a photo of the same view, but without flash. Or one could go back, temporarily refit an old style one, and measure/photograph the light. However, I cannot see how HOLMES could work this out or flag it as an issue, so someone would need to raise it with OG.
The word angelo used was "consistent" not "proof"..these words are not interchangable as anyone knows...and you accuse people of moving goalposts
...you mean as opposed to not taking to the pitch at all. You have shown time and time again that you will not back up your statements or enter into proper discussion, so I think I will leave you to it. Have fun.
For all those who didn't read Angeles post properly
Angelo said no evidence consistent with abduction
The fact that Maddie is missing is consistent with abduction
I have proved myself right and you wrong...I have backed up my statement that there is evidence which is consistent with abduction...there is and I have stated it. Your assertion that I have not backed up my statement is therefore a lie
In my opinion it would not have presented too much of a difficulty for Madeleine, who was of slight build, to be passed to a person in the passageway outside the window ... and seconds for the intruder to exit via the door.
That's just silly davel. Maddie being missing could mean a host of things.
I have proved myself right and you wrong...I have backed up my statement that there is evidence which is consistent with abduction...there is and I have stated it. Your assertion that I have not backed up my statement is therefore a lie
yes..maddie missing could mean a host of things...and is CONSISTENT with a host of things...including abduction
What evidence?
What evidence?
maddie is missing...that is evidence....her missing is consistent with abduction..as you have agreed
No it is commenting on your debating technique which is designed to prevent counter arguments.
It will be either Madeleine is missing or Redwood says.
maddie is missing...that is evidence....her missing is consistent with abduction..as you have agreed
Let's see.
Somewhere on this forum (if it hasn't been removed) we have a verbatim statement of Martin Smith acknowledging his error in (originally) misidentifying the man the Smiths all saw that night as Gerry.
So if they didn't see Gerry, who did they see?
Perhaps Madeleine's abductor?
Evidence of abduction.
Probably best left there then
It isnt
There is no evidence specific to abduction and that is the problem.
* No evidence of an intruder.
* No forced entry despite Philomena McCanns claims.
* No burglary, no valuables taken and nothing disturbed.
* No disturbance in the children's bedroom consistent with intruder(s).
* No intruder spotted.
I think Sadie's theory is as good as any and better than some.I have established, using UK figures for girls on their 4th birthday, that even if Madeleine was very slight for her age, she should be a little over 1m tall and weight 12-16kg. I have not tried an experiment to check things out, but IMO, getting Madeleine through that window is quite a challenge.
She has gone to the trouble of visiting to see first hand the areas involved, therefore her theory also has the benefit of being an exceedingly well researched and informed one.
We have many examples from Shining's posts of the manner in which on the spot observation can alter perceptions.
There may be little physical evidence from the apartment and environs. It is generally accepted that is as a result of a very poor understanding of the value of a crime scene the general area was not cordoned off as a matter of priority.
No 'fingertip' searches were conducted and cigarette butts from a possible observation point were discarded. Although powerless to prevent people entering the apartment before their arrival - not the hundreds that has been suggested, but a few - the police were relaxed enough initially to use the crime scene as a command post with only the children's room taped off.
If the level of professional understanding is:-
"I have spoken to respected experts on crime and none of them agrees it would be possible to pass a child through the window," Flores testified regarding the 2007 disappearance of the then-3-year-old child.
"It would have been a very stupid person who tried to pass a sleeping child through the window of the McCanns' holiday flat."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/13/Ex-detective-questions-Madeleine-abduction/35111263407253/
In my opinion it would not have presented too much of a difficulty for Madeleine, who was of slight build, to be passed to a person in the passageway outside the window ... and seconds for the intruder to exit via the door.
I have established, using UK figures for girls on their 4th birthday, that even if Madeleine was very slight for her age, she should be a little over 1m tall and weight 12-16kg. I have not tried an experiment to check things out, but IMO, getting Madeleine through that window is quite a challenge.
This is not a stopper for Sadie's theory. It could be that the shutter and window was opened with this intent, then found to be impractical, simply requiring the perp to use a door. Or it could be the perp went ahead with this challenge.
Heri has carried out a study on the effects of lighting in the area of both the Smith and Tanner sighting locations ... I think that, as you have done Shining, that is the only way to get a 'feel' for the circumstances at the time.That's an extremely interesting link, Brietta. I thought I had trawled back through all of Heri's blog. Perhaps I did but did not have enough knowledge of the case at that time to understand the importance.
He had the advantage that when he took his photographs, the lighting was as it had been and not updated.
...
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html
I think it would be as difficult for a perpetrator acting independent of others to manoeuvre a recumbent child out of the door as it would have been to exit via the window.
Unless ...
- open door and entered taking care to leave the door ajar
- make directly for the sleeping child, lift her and exit by the open door, giving a problem when pulling the door to a close
This would leave no reason for the intruder to open the window.
I think the window comes into it for passing Madeleine through ...All of that could have been accomplished in a very short space of time if the abduction was planned and rehearsed. It is worth reading what Heri has to say about the timing of Jane's sighting.
- intruder and accomplice approach recessed front door, wait to make sure the coast is clear
- intruder enters and raises the shutter before opening the window
- intruder lifts Madeleine and passes her to accomplice who waited in the shadows for the window to be opened
- intruder exits via door and vaults small wall
- accomplice passes Madeleine over the wall ... they separate ... with one walking briskly carrying a child to whatever escape route or vehicle planned ... and as the only person seen carrying a child in the requisite area at the requisite time by anyone ... one could well have been the person seen by Jane Tanner
The tracker dogs used showed no interest in the window or opposite wall areas. I'm no expert, but I have read that bits fall off people (skin cells etc) and that's what they follow. I would suggest that enough of the child's scent would have fallen off during those manoeuvres to make the dogs pause below that window.wouldn't the entire room have been full of Madeleine's scent anyway?
In fact Smithman is more likely to be innocent because an abductor would not have put himself in the position of having to confront a large group of people who thereafter would be eyewitnesses. Consequently NOT evidence of abduction.
In addition, given Redwoods revelation moment, Tannerman would also appear to be an innocent tourist. If anything, this strengthens the woke and wandered scenario.
Thanks SIL. What I was wondering was if Sadie's correct in thinking that a 'watcher' on the public balcony would be able to exit through the rear gardens into the car park south of the block.I can't know for certain.
wouldn't the entire room have been full of Madeleine's scent anyway?
That does look like the street lamp at the top of the photo and it isn't illuminating the pavement or the gate area, let alone the steps. AFAIK this is taken after the new lights were installed, look at the shape of them. There is plenty of light shining on the gate and up onto the balcony;Best photo I have seen so far of how the old street lamps illuminate the rear of 5A. Excellent stuff.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ocr2a.jpg)
This photo shows the old lights-they are round;
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/streetlamp1516May2007.JPG)
This is what was said in the article where the above photos appeared;
The changing street lamps of Praia da Luz
By Nigel Moore
23 April 2009
it would have been an astonishing decision to replace the street lamps in order to reduce the quality of the lighting. So, we can safely assume that the lighting in the whole area around the Ocean Club is now considerably improved - in terms of brightness and visibility
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id237.html
If he was innocent they wouldn't still be looking for eye witnesses because they know he ain't going to come forward. She wandered and dropped dead on the wasteland and crawled up a drain is what you think SY believe?
Best photo I have seen so far of how the old street lamps illuminate the rear of 5A. Excellent stuff.
If I put my personal opinion on that, I am not seeing poor quality lighting. It looks to me as is the patio of 5A is fairly well lit. The entrance at the garden gate seems fairly well lit. I cannot tell whether the stairs are illuminated or not.
Moving on to why the lights were replaced. My life is too short to investigate the actual driver for this change. Was it something to do with the Madeleine disappearance. Probably not. The STOP McCann circus graffiti seems still to be in place, something that is comparatively easy to change compared to the street lighting.
It could be a simple cost decision. Old lights = expensive to run. New lights = cheaper to run.
My favourite possibility is that there was an EU directive to reduce light heading into space. I'm simply not going to search for such.
If the old spec and the new spec exist, we can make an informed decision as to whether the new lights increase the visibility.
I am not seeing anything wrong with the old visibility. IMO, of course.
This photo was taken in May 2007 shortly after Madeleine disappeared.
(http://i.imgur.com/UM5uTUu.jpg)
Best wear something white at night. Especially with those lovely white walls to stand out against and cast shadows over...................... &%+((£Have you anything sensible to contribute to this forum today, or are you just going to keep on trying very hard to amuse us?
This photo was taken in May 2007 shortly after Madeleine disappeared.I have got to say that is excellent is several respects - timing and clarity. Wonderful stuff.
(http://i.imgur.com/UM5uTUu.jpg)
This would appear to be a later photo taken from the block opposite. Note again that the street lights are of the old round globe type which existed in 2007.Minor correction. That big lump in the central part of the pic is a (gas) tank outside the front of block 6.
Also noteworthy is the new floodlight erected to the rear and above 5a after Madeleine disappeared.
(http://i.imgur.com/VQIKUHf.jpg)
Minor correction. That big lump in the central part of the pic is a (gas) tank outside the front of block 6.do they do ghouls tours there now?
The floodlight went on the front of block 5.
You should get out to Luz and get a tour, John.
No, I mean you really should.
Really, really, really.
do they do ghouls tours there now?Depends on what you mean by ghouls tours.
This photo was taken in May 2007 shortly after Madeleine disappeared.
(http://i.imgur.com/UM5uTUu.jpg)
Depends on what you mean by ghouls tours.As I have said before, I would only consider a holiday on the Algarve if Chernobyl was fully booked for the summer.
I have a guest flying in from another part of Europe in about 10 days time. At the moment I think there is a minor interest in Madeleine, and a major interest in simply getting some sunshine in. I am pleased to say it has been weather that would grace British summertime for the last two days here.
It is up to this guest to decide what is on the agenda. Lots of Madeleine v little of Madeleine. Lots of zipping around Luz v little of zipping around Luz. Lots of activity v lots of relaxing. I am not the one to make the choices.
If you wish to come out to Luz, please let me know. I am not sure that I can arrange a ghouls tour. But if that is uppermost in your mind, I will see what I can do.
Excellent photo. I believe Sadie has said that the stair and patio were well lit at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.The GNR officer has but a single shadow, so any light source or light sources are in a single position.
What do you think of the temperature of the lighting? It looks very intense and very white ... could it be from lighting set up by a media crew ... or is that it as it was?
Minor correction. That big lump in the central part of the pic is a (gas) tank outside the front of block 6.
The floodlight went on the front of block 5.
You should get out to Luz and get a tour, John.
No, I mean you really should.
Really, really, really.
As I have said before, I would only consider a holiday on the Algarve if Chernobyl was fully booked for the summer.I take it therefore that you will not take hubris if you are not one of the invitees?
I take it therefore that you will not take hubris if you are not one of the invitees?
I look forward to my sojourn to Luz, it feels like a home from home already as I have become so familiar with its landmarks.Please let me know when you wish to come over next. I do believe I would enjoy breaking bread with you.
As I have said before, I would only consider a holiday on the Algarve if Chernobyl was fully booked for the summer.
You're just a spoilsport Alfie. 8)-)))
I take it therefore that you will not take hubris if you are not one of the invitees?No, I think there is something rather distasteful about people who choose to holiday in the place because of the Madeleine McCann case. It would literally be the last place on earth I would ever want to take my kids. I would feel ashamed to do so, quite frankly, but maybe it's just me.
You're just a spoilsport Alfie. 8)-)))what sport do you believe I am spoiling Angelo?
No, I think there is something rather distasteful about people who choose to holiday in the place because of the Madeleine McCann case. It would literally be the last place on earth I would ever want to take my kids. I would feel ashamed to do so, quite frankly, but maybe it's just me.
No, I think there is something rather distasteful about people who choose to holiday in the place because of the Madeleine McCann case. It would literally be the last place on earth I would ever want to take my kids. I would feel ashamed to do so, quite frankly, but maybe it's just me.
It's interesting that we are now back to the round globe street lighting as seen in this more recent Google Street View picture from February 2015. Gas tank at block 6 and floodlight mounted on block 5 can also be seen.
(http://i.imgur.com/cpgbUjZ.jpg)
I'm in total agreement........ I would find it a very sad place to visit and I would be angry if the nastiness we are led to believe exists there against the McCanns was expressed......
There are far better places to holiday than tainted Luz
Round and clear. The ones in May 2007 were round and opaque;
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/streetlamp1516May2007.JPG)
SADIE'S THEORY RE-STATED IN 14 POINTSSadie's theory as summarised by the ever helpful blonk, bumped for the sceptical Faithlilly who believes it is "crazy", so that she can tell us which bits she finds to be crazy.
@ Sadie Thank you very much for answering all of my post on your theory, and my questions, so quickly - and also my apologies for having taken too hurried a scan of the other thread so that I got one or two parts of your theory wrong. I had not heard of your theory before ShiningInLuz began the thread.
I have re-stated it in 14 sections, please amend it further if I have still misunderstood any of it.
SADIE'S THEORY - REVISED
1. A bloke was eyeing up Apartment G5A having already decided to abduct Madeleine, probably because she was a pretty, lively and intelligent little girl - and possibly for her ethnicity and bloodline
2. He had an accomplice waiting in a car in the car parking area opposite reception…probably as close to the gate at the bottom of the garden to block 6, across the road from 5A, as was possible. A watcher/director of abduction/getaway driver was watching everything from the balcony on block 6, right opposite 5A and he exited to the car park through the building.
3. He didn't abduct Madeleine after seeing Gerry and Kate leave their apartment at about 8.30pm. It happened immediately Gerry left at about 9.15 or so. The check had just been made and no-one was likely to check for another half hour. It gave the perpetrator the longest period to get away before discovery. The time also matches the time that Jane saw Tannerman with Madeleine. Matt thinking that the bedroom seemed a bit light from the outside, at about 9.35ish, also adds weight to the time of abduction being just after Gerry left.
4. His plan was changed after seeing Gerry and Jes Wilkins talking in the lane. The watcher/director of the abduction/getaway driver had expected to drive up the road in a northerly direction to pick up Tannerman and child from the front of 5A. He drove out, but was immediately confronted by Gerry and Jez, so he had to pass the father of the child. Furthermore he saw Jane witnessing the abductor carrying Madeleine away. I think he turned tail and shot off in a southerly direction. Tannerman was therefore left in a total quandary.
5. He had an entry key.
6. The abductor and the watcher/director of abduction/getaway driver had already decided on the time to abduct Madeleine and the method of entry. Anyone old and partially disabled could have achieved that abduction from outside the front door, into bedroom, open window and blind, drug and lift up Madeleine, then out via front door, in less than a minute.
The watcher could have seen the abductor from the balcony as s/he left the bedroom. That balcony was wonderfully positioned. From it everywhere could be seen except - that the watcher could not see the roadway going south towards reception, unless he stretched over the edge of the balcony, which was potentially a dangerous thing to do if anyone saw him.
From that position, the watcher could also get signals from Tannerman, who i believe was standing outside ready to receive Madeleine from the abductor.
7. He decided to lift up both the windows and the shutters even though he had an entry key, for a number of reasons, some of which were:
i) As a rapid escape route had Gerry or someone managed to get in unseen via the front door or the patio door.
ii) As support for the person who was lifting Madeleine [probably a woman] and instruct her as necessary.
iii) To hand things through to the lifter and take things from her (drugging devices?).
iv) To add some light to the scene from the rather tree shrouded street lamps, or via a torch held by Tannerman.
v) To dissipate any scents...Chloroform?, body sweat that dogs might pick up on.
vi) To throw the family and the police off the scent by making it look as though Madeleine went out of the window, under her own voilition(the ‘red herring’ theory
vii) To try to ensure that the front door wasn't considered during the golden hour or so.
And there are other possible reasons which I may give later.
8. He couldn’t take Madeleine in the getaway car, because the idea had been that the watcher/abduction director/getaway driver was to drive up to the entrance to 5A car park, pick up and drive off complete with Madeleine and Tannerman. But it seems likely that Tannerman was worried sick that he was carrying a stolen child in his arms, and became impatient. So he walked towards the corner to be confronted by Jane, and, Hells Bells! by Gerry and Jez. With his pick-up car dithering in the distance beyond Gerry and Jez, he made a snap decision to carry on walking probably thinking that he could circle round via the alleyway to the little car park opposite the Tapas reception - BUT unknown to him the watcher/director/driver had driven off in fear. Leaving him on his own carrying a stolen child.
9. He might have been ‘Smithman’. The Smiths saw someone, also carrying a child, at 10.00pm. It could well have been the abductor (Tannerman) still carrying his child around Praia da Luz.
10. There is no forensic or circumstantial evidence that Madeleine died. Scotland Yard have said that the parents are not suspects... nor are the Tapas group
11. There is a list of timed and dated sightings up to Porto and around Porto that are perfectly timed and spaced to have happened in the hours immediately after the abduction. I have travelled the route and I can verify that the timings for both sections are viable.
12. The girl being carried on a woman’s back in the hemp-growing region of the Rif Mountains, Morocco was NOT Bushra Benita/ Benissa (Jewish name). It was almost certainly Madeleine McCann. This is because I have a very keen eye for bone structure and shape. Furthermore the little girl in the orange top in the same photo by Ms Torres was very like Joana Cipriano.
13. The images of a little girl walking around a bank in Molenbeek St John is also a dead ringer for Madeleine...and she is accompanied by a Moroccan woman.
The very central suburb of Molenbeek St John, in Brussels, is the main port for hemp/kif grown in the Rif Mountains. Most of the stuff goes to Molenbeek to be processed, changed into hash, cannabis, etc. before being distributed from there all over the world. Most of the population of Molenbeek is from the Rif Mountains in Morocco. The little girl walking is wearing an outfit that my suspect might have bought for her. An expensive Scottish kilt , an Arran-type cream sweater. The colours of the kilt match the colours of my suspect’s tartan. This tartan. whilst being shown before on the internet, has now completely vanished. Wiped. I wonder why?
It was said that the parents think it, and I think it. The little girl is almost certainly Madeleine. Quite a big co-incidence about the tartan and it being wiped off the internet, don’t you think?
14. ‘Crecheman’ was not ‘Tannerman’, he was somebody else walking in the same area carrying a blonde child dressed only in white/pink pyjamas – but Scotland Yard seem to think otherwise.
---
The above is just about a theory. A theory that could work very well, but I acknowledge that it may not all be correct.
ENDS
Sadie's theory as summarised by the ever helpful blonk, bumped for the sceptical Faithlilly who believes it is "crazy", so that she can tell us which bits she finds to be crazy.
No, I think there is something rather distasteful about people who choose to holiday in the place because of the Madeleine McCann case. It would literally be the last place on earth I would ever want to take my kids. I would feel ashamed to do so, quite frankly, but maybe it's just me.Join the list of people who wish to bash a tourist resort like Luz on the basis that the Madeleine case occurred here. Therefore Luz should be found guilty, and subject to punishment.
I'm in total agreement........ I would find it a very sad place to visit and I would be angry if the nastiness we are led to believe exists there against the McCanns was expressed......Seems this in now sorting the posters into a new bag, where McCann supporter is equating to Luz [ censored word ].
There are far better places to holiday than tainted Luz
Sadie's theory as summarised by the ever helpful blonk, bumped for the sceptical Faithlilly who believes it is "crazy", so that she can tell us which bits she finds to be crazy.
Join the list of people who wish to bash a tourist resort like Luz on the basis that the Madeleine case occurred here. Therefore Luz should be found guilty, and subject to punishment.May I suggest you dial down the hysteria a tad? I have never suggested any of the OTT things you have ranted about above. Each to their own, and of course for some people the Madeleine McCann case is a positive raison d'etre to visit PdL - has tourism suffered there as a result? Perhaps you can supply the evidence for this, it was my understanding that the resort was enjoying something of a renaissance. It remains my personal view that people who choose to holiday there (or even worse move there to live) simply because it is the place where Madeleine McCann went missing is a bit sick. Sorry if this offends you but I am exercising my right to an opinion, which I believe I am allowed to do on this forum (up to a point of course...)
Its tourist business should be shut down. The proprietors should lose their investment. Perhaps it would be easier just to bulldoze the place off the face of the earth.
God only knows the media portrays it as a hellhole. Burglaries to the left, right and centre. Drugs rampant. Mental cases abound. Beware of the rapists. Absolutely rife with paedos. Sexual assaults on a regular basis.
The last place on earth to ever take your kids?
9. He might have been ‘Smithman’. The Smiths saw someone, also carrying a child, at 10.00pm. It could well have been the abductor (Tannerman) still carrying his child around Praia da Luz.
No abductor was carrying a child around Luz for 45 minutes. To believe that happened is complete madness. They were heading in different directions. One had long hair, one short. I don't have to explain any further the absurdity of such a claim.
Shall we start with the bloodline thing followed quickly by Tannerman who SY have ruled out and finish with the Moroccan/Belguim nonsense. Wrap that up with a great big bow of speculation and there you have it ( and you call my theory crazy ssshhhh !! )How about we start with the theory as summarised above, or is that not quite crazy enough for you?
I believe it is possible that Madeleine was carried around for 45 minutes, with possibly a rest somewhere in between. Not at all madness in my opinion.
9. He might have been ‘Smithman’. The Smiths saw someone, also carrying a child, at 10.00pm. It could well have been the abductor (Tannerman) still carrying his child around Praia da Luz.No father parades through the streets carrying the corpse of his dead daughter for all to see (whilst his wifeis busy drawing attention to the child's disappearance to all and sundry) if he is intent on chucking it in a bin or hiding it under a bush - To believe that happened is complete madness.
No abductor was carrying a child around Luz for 45 minutes. To believe that happened is complete madness. They were heading in different directions. One had long hair, one short. I don't have to explain any further the absurdity of such a claim.
That is my theory - 2 moves. That is different to keep an alibi. This says being carried for 45 mins which is nonsense.
No father parades through the streets carrying the corpse of his dead daughter for all to see (whilst his wifeis busy drawing attention to the child's disappearance to all and sundry) if he is intent on chucking it in a bin or hiding it under a bush - To believe that happened is complete madness.
How would they know she's dead?How would who know she's dead? The father and mother would, presumably, so who else are you referring to? You think it's perfectly uncrazy to dispose of a body by carrying it uncovered through the streets of a tourist village, bumping into more than half a dozen holiday makers while your other half is screaming that the same child has mysteriously vanished?
How would who know she's dead? The father and mother would, presumably, so who else are you referring to? You think it's perfectly uncrazy to dispose of a body by carrying it uncovered through the streets of a tourist village, bumping into more than half a dozen holiday makers while your other half is screaming that the same child has mysteriously vanished?
I believe it is possible that Madeleine was carried around for 45 minutes, with possibly a rest somewhere in between. Not at all madness in my opinion.
Seems this in now sorting the posters into a new bag, where McCann supporter is equating to Luz [ censored word ].
Tainted Luz? That comment is both cheap and nasty.
If you were going to abduct a child would you wander around a town with her in your arms knowing the police could very well be scouring the streets for her? The entire proposition sounds implausible to me unless of course the abductor was a nutter??
Abductors usually are nutters. But perhaps you can come up with some examples of sane ones.
How do you know abductors are usually nutters ?
There is a contingent in Luz that are actively against The McCanns. But I wouldn't stay there because it is largely cheap and nasty.
It was a terrible thing to do to what was once a charming fishing village.
There seriously isn't a logical reply to that.
Cheap and nasty ?
That is your opinion and not a fact.
Quite frankly, I can't really blame some residents of PDL disliking the mccanns.
There is, I'm still waiting.
Many abductions are for people being held to ransom.
Quite deliberate and planned.
Criminals yes, but it doesn't make them nutters.
What, like Madeleine's Abduction was planned? But then all criminals are nutters.
How about we start with the theory as summarised above, or is that not quite crazy enough for you?
How would who know she's dead? The father and mother would, presumably, so who else are you referring to? You think it's perfectly uncrazy to dispose of a body by carrying it uncovered through the streets of a tourist village, bumping into more than half a dozen holiday makers while your other half is screaming that the same child has mysteriously vanished?
As you are more than aware, I don't consider this case to be an abduction.
All criminal are nutters, now that is plainly a ridiculous comment.
Oh God. We'll have the bleeding hearts in a minute. But never mind. You can always set up a Fund when the abductors are caught.
And don't tell me that's not possible.
That is not a logical response.
Why should I have 'a bleeding heart' for criminals ?
Please explain.
Abductors usually are nutters. But perhaps you can come up with some examples of sane ones.
It's as logical as you are going to get, bearing in mind your illogical comments. And the mocking of Sadie. At least she has tried.
There is a contingent in Luz that are actively against The McCanns. But I wouldn't stay there because it is largely cheap and nasty.
It was a terrible thing to do to what was once a charming fishing village.
Cheap and nasty ?
That is your opinion and not a fact.
Quite frankly, I can't really blame some residents of PDL disliking the mccanns.
I don't agree Elie. Child abductions occur for all sorts of reasons including child trafficking. In Sadie's theory, her abductor isn't a nutter but part of a sophisticated and organised crime syndication.
Here Here
What, like Madeleine's Abduction was planned? But then all criminals are nutters.
Perhaps you'll show me where I have failed to do that ?Which elements of Sadie's theory as précis-ed by Blonk do you find specifically crazy? You've mentioned stuff about bloodlines and Morocco which do not feature in this précis so let's put that to one side for now (extraneous to the actual theory of how and when Madeleine was abducted) and discuss the specifics. Got a problem with that?
What on earth are you on about.
So wod you call someone who travels 32 mph in a 30 mph zone a criminal and nutter ?
You need to think through your responses.
As to Sadie, I view her theories in the same vein as Hall's ones, after a brief glimpse at video number 4.
Now you have really gone daft. Temporarily, hopefully.
What on earth are you on about.
So would you call someone who travels 32 mph in a 30 mph zone a criminal and nutter ?
You need to think through your responses.
As to Sadie, I view her theories in the same vein as Hall's ones, after a brief glimpse at video number 4.
The Oxford Dictionary defines a nutter as someone who is either mad, eccentric or both. Not your average abductor.
Most abductions are carried out by family members who aren't nutters.
Which elements of Sadie's theory as précis-ed by Blonk do you find specifically crazy? You've mentioned stuff about bloodlines and Morocco which do not feature in this précis so let's put that to one side for now (extraneous to the actual theory of how and when Madeleine was abducted) and discuss the specifics. Got a problem with that?
You cannot blame an entire community because of the actions of a few. Luz is no better or no worse than any Iberian resort, in fact I can think of a few I would never want to visit but Luz isn't one of them. I consider it a charming little town and hope to visit it one of these days.
Precisely. 8@??)(
It isn't a Town. It's a village that has had the heart knocked out of it in the name of Mammon. And not frightfully well done at that.
Rural Portugal itself is beautiful, and mostly improved with sensitivity. Luz is largely a sprawling eyesore.
So why does Sadie say Madeleine was targeted ?Jews? Bloodline?? Dunno. Does it have a bearing on how and when the abduction occurred? No one knows why Madeleine was abducted but we do know that it was eminently possible that she was - it is that which interests me more, and I think Sadie's theory in this regard is workable. How about you?
For the tourist industry and it's reputation tarnished for years to come by the mccanns.
For the tourist industry and it's reputation tarnished for years to come by the mccanns.
Jews? Bloodline?? Dunno. Does it have a bearing on how and when the abduction occurred? No one knows why Madeleine was abducted but we do know that it was eminently possible that she was - it is that which interests me more, and I think Sadie's theory in this regard is workable. How about you?
That is my theory - 2 moves. That is different to keep an alibi. This says being carried for 45 mins which is nonsense.
I think Jane Tanner saw the abductor at 21:50 +- 0:05 and he went directly to Rua da Escola Primaria where the Smiths saw him with Madeleine.
Short of aliens landing and abducting Madeleine almost all theories are "workable".Once again, you fail to address the meat and potatoes of Sadie's theory, preferring to concentrate on the sauce. Any reason why that should be?
I think Jane Tanner saw the abductor at 21:50 +- 0:05 and he went directly to Rua da Escola Primaria where the Smiths saw him with Madeleine.
Jane left the table the second time before 9:40 because she was in the apartment with Russell for about 5 minutes before he returned to the table at 9:45 (confirmed by the waiter who served him his steak). So if she saw him on her on her second absence it was around 9:40. But Jane said she saw Jes Wilkins talking to Gerry before seeing the man and they both saw nobody.
This timeline fits with mine:
Four phone records between José Silva and Ricardo Rodrigues, made at the day of the crime, are under suspicion: the phone call made at 17:26 which coincides with the time that Maddie left the crèche; a text message at 21:25 when two members of the McCann's group went to check the children; another at 21:38, when Jane Tanner left the Tapas bar and the last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance.
I think Jane Tanner saw the abductor at 21:50 +- 0:05 and he went directly to Rua da Escola Primaria where the Smiths saw him with Madeleine.
An abductor is just an unproven theory.
I think Jane Tanner saw the abductor at 21:50 +- 0:05 and he went directly to Rua da Escola Primaria where the Smiths saw him with Madeleine.
Abdication can be proven on the balance of possibilities
And it seems SY agree
Ha ha turn off the predictive text!
Who are they under suspicion by?
Once again, you fail to address the meat and potatoes of Sadie's theory, preferring to concentrate on the sauce. Any reason why that should be?
And you think this isn't nuts? Crazy? Insane? Psychopathic? Just help yourself to anything that isn't yours?
Your opinion is a lot more suspect than Sadie's.
I don't know much about organised crime syndicates, but if you think they aren't seriously bent then you need to do a reality check.
someone who drives at 32 is neither a nutter or a criminal as speeding is not a criminal offence
Tell you what Alfie let's make it simpler. You tell me specifically what you want answered and I'll try and accommodate you. Can't say fairer than that.I've already said what I want answered and that is - which part of the how and when of Sadie's theory do you find crazy?
You claimed all child abductors were 'nutters' and I took issue with you as that is untrue.
It isn't a Town. It's a village that has had the heart knocked out of it in the name of Mammon. And not frightfully well done at that.
Rural Portugal itself is beautiful, and mostly improved with sensitivity. Luz is largely a sprawling eyesore.
So some of them are perfectly normal and upstanding citizens, you think?
But, - but, - but Jane claims she saw Tannerman at about 915, around the time she saw Gerry & Jez.
How could she be SO wrong?
Personally I would agree that the "why" of Sadie's theory is a little (shall we say) eccentric - anything about Jews and bloodlines is a nonstarter for me. Also, her views on what happened to Madeleine after the abduction and her view that it was she who was photographed on the back of a Moroccan peasant are deep into the realms of nuttiness (sorry Sadie, I do love you, and respect your right to hold this view but I do think it's 99.99% unlikely), however the how and the when of Sadie's abduction theory re the events of the night of 3rd MAy 2007 seems quite sound to me.
They could very well be such as the father who abducts his children to get away from an abusive mother and vice versa.I don't think a parent who removes their child from the clutches of an abusive parent can really be classed as a "child abductor" can they?
I guess she was just mistaken about the time, who she saw and where they were.
It could be also a case of making the wrong profile graph fit the few known points.
I don't entirely agree with Sadie, but then she doesn't expect us to. But a lot of what she says does make sense. In the absence of actuality.
I agree with you there, all the more reason she should get past the Rif Mountains diversion.I'd agree with that too. Maddie in the Rif Mountains is just not happening, IMO.
Abdication can be proven on the balance of possibilities
And it seems SY agree
I think Jane Tanner saw the abductor at 21:50 +- 0:05 and he went directly to Rua da Escola Primaria where the Smiths saw him with Madeleine.
So some of them are perfectly normal and upstanding citizens, you think?
I've already said what I want answered and that is - which part of the how and when of Sadie's theory do you find crazy?
I find it ridiculous that any criminal gang would go to such trouble to adduct a rather ordinary young English girl who was not in any way different from many other young blonde girls on holiday that week in Luz. Don't you ?You could say the same about any child stolen to order. Most would fall into the category of "rather ordinary", unless you are suggesting that children who are abducted by criminal(s) are somehow more special than most other children?
Seems this in now sorting the posters into a new bag, where McCann supporter is equating to Luz [ censored word ].
Tainted Luz? That comment is both cheap and nasty.
Neither of you probably understand what the balance of probabilities mean
You could say the same about any child stolen to order. Most would fall into the category of "rather ordinary", unless you are suggesting that children who are abducted by criminal(s) are somehow more special than most other children?
TBH apart from a kidnap for ransom I have never heard of a child stolen to order. Have you ?The Met obviously considered it a real possibility.
Oh I do, and it is quite obvious you don't.
TBH apart from a kidnap for ransom I have never heard of a child stolen to order. Have you ?
It's amazing what you can get on the internet these days...seriously a highly unlikely occurance unless sorted out long before they arrived, in which case.....Would 6 weeks be long enough?
It's amazing what you can get on the internet these days...seriously a highly unlikely occurance unless sorted out long before they arrived, in which case.....Can you explain this sentence please.
Is there any possibility, in your opinion, that Tannerman was the abductor?
Yes.
Yes.
That would fit the times certainly but why risk walking all the way down town?
Maybe because he knew a safe place there, maybe because down town is the seashore, maybe ... How many people did the Smiths find in the street besides Smithman? How many people did the couple who left an apartment near 5A at 21:58 see in the street? I think the streets was not "full of people" at 22:00 that cold night.
Yes.
Check your facts Heriberto, they are out of date.
The Met obviously considered it a real possibility.
And when exactly did they say that ?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2512536/Madeleine-McCann-was-snatched-by-paedophile-ring-to-order.html
And you haven't answered my question ( I feel an 'I'll answer you after you've answered me' deflection coming on !! )
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2512536/Madeleine-McCann-was-snatched-by-paedophile-ring-to-order.html
The source of the information was anonymous and its reliability unclear. The email was sent to Leicestershire police on March 4 this year but apparently not forwarded to Portuguese detectives until April 21.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2512536/Madeleine-McCann-was-snatched-by-paedophile-ring-to-order.html
And the Guardian,,,You seem to have misunderstood. Also from the Guardian, which PROVES that the Met seem to believe children being snatched to order is not an absurd notion as mooted by faithlilly:
Is this information in the files ?I have a list as long as my arm of questions you've refused to answer, so what makes you think I have to answer all yours?
BTW Alfie you haven't answered my question yet.
You seem to have misunderstood. Also from the Guardian, which PROVES that the Met seem to believe children being snatched to order is not an absurd notion as mooted by faithlilly:
The Metropolitan police email, from officer John Shord, reads: "Intelligence suggests that a paedophile ring in Belgium made an order for a young girl three days before Madeleine McCann was taken.
"Somebody connected to this group saw Maddie, took a photograph of her and sent it to Belgium.
Is any of this in the files ?apparently so, did you not read the link I posted?
I have a list as long as my arm of questions you've refused to answer, so what makes you think I have to answer all yours?
And there's the deflection ! @)(++(*
apparently so, did you not read the link I posted?
And there's the deflection ! @)(++(*You never deflect do you Faithlilly? Bless you.
That was a newspaper article. Surely information as important as that published must be in the files.Oh right. So the Telegraph made the whole thing up and the picture of the actual email from the Met an obvious forgery. Silly me.
You never deflect do you Faithlilly? Bless you.
Here's the answer to your question.
Yes. I have heard of children being stolen to order. It happens in China and India on a not infrequent basis. I understand that paedophile rings operate on the basis that children with specific attributes that appeal to their members are targeted by their assailants, though I have to admit it's not my field of expertise so can't give you specifics, sorry,
Here is a rather harrowing account of a child being hunted and targetted specifically for the way he looked by a pair of paedophiles. I doubt he was exceptionally out of the ordinary, and you could well ask, what made him so special. You'll no doubt enjoy the article as it's by one of your favourite authors.
http://www.nickdavies.net/1995/04/01/the-murder-of-daniel-handley-three-features/
I trust this answer has been comprehensive enough for you, feel free to ask any more questions and rest assured I will do my best to provide you with the information you require.
I would also ask you to please remember the fact that I will always answer your queries and would ask please if you would kindly do the courtesy of answering all mine in future, Many thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
SADIE'S THEORY RE-STATED IN 14 POINTSSorry that this has taken so long. Yesterday my eyes werre streaming and sore because I had spent too ,long at the computer the evening before ... so I took a day off.
@ Sadie Thank you very much for answering all of my post on your theory, and my questions, so quickly - and also my apologies for having taken too hurried a scan of the other thread so that I got one or two parts of your theory wrong. I had not heard of your theory before ShiningInLuz began the thread.
I have re-stated it in 14 sections, please amend it further if I have still misunderstood any of it.
In the main you have understood it correctly, but there a number of errors, so I will change bits if you dont mind
SADIE'S THEORY - REVISED
1. A At least one man was eyeing up Apartment G5A it having already been decided to abduct Madeleine by a certain other man , probably because she was a pretty, lively and intelligent little girl - and possibly for her ethnicity and bloodline (At least three witnesses saw a watcher of 5A in the days before Madeleine vanished.)
2. He and his accomplises had a vehicle in the car parking area opposite reception…probably as close to the gate at the bottom of the garden to block 6, across the road from 5A, as was possible. A watcher/director of abduction/getaway driver was watching everything from the balcony on block 6, immediately opposite 5A and he exited to the car park when he believed that Madeleine was taken. He went through the building.
3. It appears that he didn't abduct Madeleine after seeing Gerry and Kate leave their apartment at about 8.30pm. It happened immediately Gerry left at about 9.15 or so. The check had just been made and no-one was likely to check for another half hour. It gave the perpetrator the longest period to get away before discovery. The time also matches the time that Jane saw Tannerman with Madeleine. Matt thinking that the bedroom seemed a bit light from the outside, at about 9.35ish, also adds weight to the time of abduction being just after Gerry left.
4. His plan was suddenly changed after seeing Gerry and Jes Wilkins talking in the roadway/pavement edge adjacent to the alletyway and because the pick up vehicle didn't arrive. The watcher/director of the abduction/getaway driver had expected to drive up the road in a northerly direction to pick up Tannerman and Madeleine from the front of 5A. He drove out, but was immediately was confronted by Gerry and Jez, so he had to pass the father of the child. Furthermore he saw Jane witnessing the abductor carrying Madeleine away. I think he turned tail and shot off in a southerly direction. Tannerman was therefore left in a total quandary.
5. He had an entry key or a means to get through the locked, but not double locked front door.
6. The abductor and the watcher/director of abduction/getaway driver had already decided on the time to abduct Madeleine and the method of entry. Sadie is old and partially disabled,, but until recently, she could have achieved that abduction from outside the front door, into bedroom, open window and blind, drug and lift up Madeleine, then out via front door, in less than a minute. May I suggest that you check the distance and time yourself on such a manoeuvre
The watcher could have seen the abductor from the balcony as s/he left the bedroom. That balcony was wonderfully positioned. From it everywhere could be seen except - that the watcher could not see the roadway going south towards reception, unless he stretched over the edge of the balcony, which was potentially a dangerous thing to do if anyone saw him.
From that position, the watcher could also get signals from Tannerman, who i believe was standing outside ready to receive Madeleine from the abductor.
There was an accomplis who Madeleine knew and trusted. S/he did the actual lifting. Tannerman stayed outside ready to take Madeleine from the lifter. This appears to be correct because when the accomplis lifted her, Madeleines head would rested on the lifters right arm. Tannerman carried Madeleines head upon his left arm. So there was a swop over, probably in the dark porch, or over the wall in front of the apartments.
The door was closed by pulling the key with door. The knob wasn't touched and neither was the door.
7. He decided to lift up/ open both the windows and the shutters even though he had an entry key, for a number of reasons, some of which were:
i) As a rapid escape route had Gerry or someone managed to get in unseen via the front door or the patio door.
ii) As support for the person who was lifting Madeleine [probably a woman] and instruct her as necessary.
iii) To hand things through to the lifter and take things from her (drugging devices?).
iv) To add some light to the scene from the rather tree shrouded street lamps, or via a torch held by Tannerman.
v) To dissipate any scents...Chloroform?, body sweat that dogs might pick up on.
vi) To throw the family and the police off the scent by making it look as though Madeleine went out of the window, under her own voilition (the ‘red herring’ theory)
vii) To try to ensure that the front door wasn't considered during the golden hour or so.
And there are other possible reasons which I may give later.
Added:
I think it was Brietta who suggested that the perp was aware that if the police thought that the front door had been used, they might make enquiries as to who had given him the key? Then catch the accomplice leading to him and the watcher, being caught. So another possible reason for opening the window
8. He couldn’t take Madeleine in the getaway car, because the idea had been that the watcher/abduction director/getaway driver was to drive up to the entrance to 5A car park, pick up and drive off complete with Madeleine and Tannerman. But it seems likely that Tannerman was worried sick that he was carrying a stolen child in his arms, and became impatient. So he walked towards the corner to be confronted by Jane, and, Hells Bells! by Gerry and Jez. With his pick-up car dithering in the distance beyond Gerry and Jez, he made a snap decision to carry on walking probably thinking that he could circle round via the alleyway to the little car park opposite the Tapas reception - BUT unknown to him the watcher/director/driver had driven off in fear. Leaving him on his own carrying a stolen child.
9. He might have been ‘Smithman’. The Smiths saw someone, also carrying a child, at 10.00pm. It could well have been the abductor (Tannerman) still carrying Madeleine around Praia da Luz... and he could have gone into the staff quarters for help. It seems likely that the lifter /accomplis was someone that Madeleine knew, probably an OC staff member, so that if she awakened before being drugged, she would feel OK with someone she knew.
10. There is no forensic or circumstantial evidence that Madeleine died. Scotland Yard have said that the parents are not suspects... nor are the Tapas group
11. There is a list of timed and dated sightings up to Porto and around Porto that are perfectly timed and spaced to have happened in the hours immediately after the abduction. I have travelled the route and I can verify that the timings for both sections are viable.
12. The girl being carried on a woman’s back in the hemp-growing region of the Rif Mountains, Morocco was NOT Bushra Benita/ Benissa (Jewish name). It was almost certainly Madeleine McCann. This is because I have a very keen eye for bone structure and shape. Furthermore the little girl in the orange top in the same photo by Ms Torres was very like Joana Cipriano.
13. The images of a little girl walking around a bank in Molenbeek St John is also a dead ringer for Madeleine...and she is accompanied by a Moroccan woman.
The very central suburb of Molenbeek St John, in Brussels, is the main port for hemp/kif grown in the Rif Mountains. Most of the stuff goes to Molenbeek to be processed, changed into hash, cannabis, etc. before being distributed from there all over the world. Most of the population of Molenbeek is from the Rif Mountains in Morocco. The little girl walking is wearing an outfit that my suspect might have bought for her. An expensive Scottish kilt , an Arran-type cream sweater. The colours of the kilt match the colours of my suspect’s tartan. This tartan. whilst being shown before on the internet, has now completely vanished. Wiped. I wonder why?
It was said that the parents think it, and I think it. The little girl is almost certainly Madeleine. Quite a big co-incidence about the tartan and it being wiped off the internet?
14. ‘Crecheman’ was not ‘Tannerman’, he was somebody else walking in the same area carrying a blonde child dressed only in white/pink pyjamas – but Scotland Yard seem to think otherwise.
---
The above is just about a theory. A theory that could work very well, but I acknowledge that it may not all be correct.
ENDS
Yesterday my eyes werre streaming and sore because I had spent too ,long at the computer the evening before ... so I took a day off.Trust me, you haven't missed much of interest.
I am not sure that I can keep up with this thread, cos i am not going to work deep intio the night anymore, but I will do my best
Horrendous case but the victim wasn't stolen to order. He was hunted down by paedophiles who then abused and murdered him.He was targeted on account of how he looked, the paedos bided their time until they got the one they wanted and who fulfilled their criteria. Sadie's theory (if I remember correctly) is that Madeleine was targeted because of the way she looked. You poo-poo'ed this because she was so "ordinary" and asked why anyone would have chosen her specifically. I've just explained why. You don't accept it, fine. I don't know if Madeleine was abducted to order, my own view is that she was more likely the victim of someone local who had spotted her during the week and decided he had to have her.
He was targeted on account of how he looked, the paedos bided their time until they got the one they wanted and who fulfilled their criteria. Sadie's theory (if I remember correctly) is that Madeleine was targeted because of the way she looked. You poo-poo'ed this because she was so "ordinary" and asked why anyone would have chosen her specifically. I've just explained why. You don't accept it, fine. I don't know if Madeleine was abducted to order, my own view is that she was more likely the victim of someone local who had spotted her during the week and decided he had to have her.
Another full and frank answer from Alfred to Faithlilly. 8((()*/
In fact Smithman is more likely to be innocent because an abductor would not have put himself in the position of having to confront a large group of people who thereafter would be eyewitnesses. Consequently NOT evidence of abduction.Had Tannerman been let down by his getaway driver as seems possible, he was left in the lurch. He had a little girl who was worth a lot iof money to him, if as i think an Elite person had ordered her. A valuable commodity. Also he had tio get rid of her as soon as possible. I think he went to The Staff Quarters just up the road from the Smiths sightings and his accomplice who lived there phoned around for him to arrange what happened next.
In addition, given Redwoods revelation moment, Tannerman would also appear to be an innocent tourist. If anything, this strengthens the woke and wandered scenario.
I have established, using UK figures for girls on their 4th birthday, that even if Madeleine was very slight for her age, she should be a little over 1m tall and weight 12-16kg. I have not tried an experiment to check things out, but IMO, getting Madeleine through that window is quite a challenge.Somewhere kate says that she was 90
This is not a stopper for Sadie's theory. It could be that the shutter and window was opened with this intent, then found to be impractical, simply requiring the perp to use a door. Or it could be the perp went ahead with this challenge.
Had Tannerman been let down by his getaway driver as seems possible, he was left in the lurch. He had a little girl who was worth a lot iof money to him, if as i think an Elite person had ordered her. A valuable commodity. Also he had tio get rid of her as soon as possible. I think he went to The Staff Quarters just up the road from the Smiths sightings and his accomplice who lived there phoned around for him to arrange what happened next.So are you saying the accomplice who provided a cardi was female Sadie?
I think she also put a cardi on Madeleine.
I can't know for certain.
What I do know is that if I wished to get down the west side of block 6 following an abduction, then a gate followed by trespass followed by another gate would not stop me.
I suppose that my biggest issue with this particular point of Sadie's theorem is using the car park to the rear of block 6. The Berry and Balu party on the balcony of 606 seems a bit of a problem. True, they were wining and dining, not acting as the local neighbourhood watch, much like the Tapas 9.
But why stick a car there, opposite the Tapas entrance? Why not in the car park of block 4, which is much less risky?
However, as Sadie has said, she has tried to explain the main pieces of evidence with her theory, without claiming it is infallible.
Personally, I think that an abductor would not park his car on the car park so close to where the abduction took place. The first time we visited 5A in June/July 2010 there was never a car on that car park. The last time in Oct/Nov 2014 there were a few cars. Seems to me that whilst the Tapas group were there no-one hired a car, Mrs Fenn appeared to travel by taxi. Mainly the block was empty, I think. Were there any other people who had cars? DunnoAnd, I should add
If the car park was always empty, then it would be truly dangerous to leave the getaway car there, cos people would be noticing it.
OMO.
Somewhere kate says that she was 900 cm tall. In another place someone says that she was 1 metre tall.Both Kate and Gerry came up in their first statements that Madeleine was 90cm tall. The description issued by the police was 90cm. I only got interested when I read a bit in the PJ Files that the pyjamas Madeleine was growing out of were for someone 97cm tall.
I doubt very much that unless she was heavily drugged that they could have passed Madeleine through that window ... and then it would have been a struugle, there would almost certainly have been fibres left. The simplest was to just carry her out via the front door and swop over to Tannerman in the dark porchway, or possible over the wall at the front of the apartment.
IMO
So are you saying the accomplice who provided a cardi was female Sadie?I am thinking it likely because the people that Madekleine met and would have trusted were mainly female. And if planned as it seems to have been, the accomplice, who lifted, had to be trusted by Madeleine (and the twins possibly)
And, I should addRB statement says "all of us ate on the veranda"
If the balcony on the side of block 6 were used to watch and direct, the closest place for the getaway driver to be parked is at the back of that apartment. He would probably be shelterd by a couple of cars from people leaving the Tapas reception.
Anyone know what time the berries and the Balus ate. Did they eat on their laps on the balcony, or at a dining table before going outside? Anyone know/
RB statement says "all of us ate on the veranda"Is that the big round balcony at the eastern end of block 6 ? Cos it is well wall enclosed, heads may be partially or fully below balcony height ... and it is 30+ metres away from where the getaway car might have been parked.
Is that the big round balcony at the eastern end of block 6 ? Cos it is well wall enclosed, heads may be partially or fully below balcony height ... and it is 30+ metres away from where the getaway car might have been parked.Yes that's the balcony Sadie.
No-one saw the child leave the apartment evening 3rd. What does that tell us?
No-one saw the child leave the apartment evening 3rd. What does that tell us?
It tells us one or two things"...whatever remains, however improbable, ..."
No one saw the child leave of her own accord
No one saw the child being taken out by persons known or unknown
Child did not leave evening 3rd May either way (which is a bit improbable)
"...whatever remains, however improbable, ..."Just peeked in as one does:
(Lippincotts Feb 1890)
Just peeked in as one does:There are 3 witnesses who saw the child in the apartment early evening 3rd, so that is fact IMO.
Quite BUT I forgot to add to my little list that either (ie child leaving in its own or with known or unknown persons) could have happened without anyone seeing a thing...
I believe in Sadie's theory Madeleine was stolen on the orders of some unnamed untouchable because of her bloodline or some such nonsense. The victim in your link was targeted by paedophiles because he was blonde, slim and on his own. He was not stolen to order, he was taken because he was available and you have yet to provide one case of a child being 'stolen to order' in the way Sadie describes.You're still obsessed with the "why" of Sadie's theory and studiously avoiding the when and the how. We can all play the game you're playing. I don't suppose you can provide any other example of loving parents covering up the accidental death of their child whilst on holiday but I don't keep on demanding you supply examples! I have already stated that I don't accept the Jewish / bloodline elements of Sadie's theory but you can't seem to get past that. Why not?
Oh right. So the Telegraph made the whole thing up and the picture of the actual email from the Met an obvious forgery. Silly me.
It's a report of an anonymous tip off to the met eventually passed on to LP.It is in the files. There is a picture of an email from the Met about it. They considered the possibility that madeleine had been abducted to order as one worth following up. what are you arguing about?
You're still obsessed with the "why" of Sadie's theory and studiously avoiding the when and the how. We can all play the game you're playing. I don't suppose you can provide any other example of loving parents covering up the accidental death of their child whilst on holiday but I don't keep on demanding you supply examples! I have already stated that I don't accept the Jewish / bloodline elements of Sadie's theory but you can't seem to get past that. Why not?
It is in the files. There is a picture of an email from the Met about it. They considered the possibility that madeleine had been abducted to order as one worth following up. what are you arguing about?
Someone told the met that's what happened, they passed it on.I KNOW!!!!!!!! That is not the point, why are you being so obtuse?
I'm sure I can provide many examples of seemingly loving parents covering up the death of a child after a tragic, unintentional incident. While on holiday may be a tad trickier. You however seem unable to provide even one example of a child who was stolen to order ( and I'm not even demanding the holiday bit ).I'm not busting a gut to prove something I don't necessarily believe to be true in this case. Nice cop-out on giving any sort of intelligent appraisal on the how and the when of Sadie's "crazy" theory though.
As to Sadie's theory as it seems to depend largely on Tannerman, a sighting that SY have all but ruled out, it would seem a waste of time to dissect it more thoroughly.
I have got to say that is excellent is several respects - timing and clarity. Wonderful stuff.
What I am seeing is that the lighting seems to be sufficient to illuminate both the patio and cast some light on the stairs.
Anyone willing to take a punt on the colour of the GNR officer's uniform, without looking it up on Google.
I'm getting black (unlikely) or dark blue. Mind you, I've got plenty of time to study a photo that I consider important. Jane Tanner had a few seconds to look at something that was not important.
This would appear to be a later photo taken from the block opposite. Note again that the street lights are of the old round globe type which existed in 2007.
Also noteworthy is the new floodlight erected to the rear and above 5a after Madeleine disappeared.
(http://i.imgur.com/VQIKUHf.jpg)
Excellent photo. I believe Sadie has said that the stair and patio were well lit at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.
What do you think of the temperature of the lighting? It looks very intense and very white ... could it be from lighting set up by a media crew ... or is that it as it was?
As I have said before, I would only consider a holiday on the Algarve if Chernobyl was fully booked for the summer.Tha Algarve is beautiful and the people generally very kind and friendly. THe rocky coves and caves to the east of Alvor are a sight for sore eyes. And the sands whilst not white are very fine. The sea comes all the way across the Atlantic, without hitting land and never seemed polluted in any way to me
Join the list of people who wish to bash a tourist resort like Luz on the basis that the Madeleine case occurred here. Therefore Luz should be found guilty, and subject to punishment.Please dont get affended SIL.
Its tourist business should be shut down. The proprietors should lose their investment. Perhaps it would be easier just to bulldoze the place off the face of the earth.
God only knows the media portrays it as a hellhole. Burglaries to the left, right and centre. Drugs rampant. Mental cases abound. Beware of the rapists. Absolutely rife with paedos. Sexual assaults on a regular basis.
The last place on earth to ever take your kids?
Perhaps we shall start with the Illuminati and very important people.
You could always e-mail Dan Brown. %£5&% %£5&%
The GNR officer has but a single shadow, so any light source or light sources are in a single position.No he has two. Another one on the wall of 5A, I think. Maybe I am wrong, must look again.
This is just the normal lighting at the time. Photographed by someone who could take photos after dark. The very whiteness is just because the building and walls were whitewashed.
IMO.
Tha Algarve is beautiful and the people generally very kind and friendly. THe rocky coves and caves to the east of Alvor are a sight for sore eyes. And the sands whilst not white are very fine. The sea comes all the way across the Atlantic, without hitting land and never seemed polluted in any way to meI'm sure you're right about the place Sadie, it's just that I could never bring myself to book a holiday there - I couldn't imagine enjoying myself there, and I would be constantly surrounded by reminders of the case.
And then there is SIL there. What more could you want ?*&*%£
You should give it a try Alfred. I think you might be very surprised .... and prices are very cheap atm. Avoid Albufeira tho. There have been a series of nasty attacks for money there. One or two other spots that I would avoid too but generally the resorts are very pleasant.
9. He might have been ‘Smithman’. The Smiths saw someone, also carrying a child, at 10.00pm. It could well have been the abductor (Tannerman) still carrying his child around Praia da Luz.You haven't been reading Pfinder.
No abductor was carrying a child around Luz for 45 minutes. To believe that happened is complete madness. They were heading in different directions. One had long hair, one short. I don't have to explain any further the absurdity of such a claim.
(http://i.imgur.com/UM5uTUu.jpg)
As you can see the patio area is well lit. However as John pointed out some months ago, the steps are only illuminated from the street lamp, part way up.
Photos can lie about brightness (long exposure/ short exposure, also adjustments to the printing, I think). I doubt that the lighting was as intense as this, but then I dont know for sure. One thing is sure and that is against the blackness of the apartments to the west of 5A, the Mccann apartment stood out because the patio area was well illuminated.
Also, there was some additional lighting coming from the street lamp down the road, by the little car park opposite the Tapas reception. You can tell that by the little shadow of the policeman on the Mccann garden wall
No he has two. Another one on the wall of 5A, I think. Maybe I am wrong, must look again.
I think that i am right.
I'm not busting a gut to prove something I don't necessarily believe to be true in this case. Nice cop-out on giving any sort of intelligent appraisal on the how and the when of Sadie's "crazy" theory though.
BTW - let's have 3 examples of loving parents covering up the tragic accidental death of their child then.
If you were going to abduct a child would you wander around a town with her in your arms knowing the police could very well be scouring the streets for her? The entire proposition sounds implausible to me unless of course the abductor was a nutter??In my theory, the abductor had been let down by a frightened getaway driver. He was carrying a very valuable little girl (a financial asset to him) and he wanted the money for her. He might even have ben blackmailed into doing it and was frightene if he didn't succeed.
In my theory, the abductor had been let down by a frightened getaway driver. He was carrying a very valuable little girl (a financial asset to him) and he wanted the money for her. He might even have ben blackmailed into doing it and was frightene if he didn't succeed.
I think that he probably called in at the Staff quarters to get help from his accomplice and s/he phoned around for instructions what to do in the circumstances. She probably gave him a warming drink and also found something warm for Madeleine.
According to a poster on the 3A's forum, a scream was heard coming from the staff quarters.
Shall we start with the bloodline thing followed quickly by Tannerman who SY have ruled out and finish with the Moroccan/Belguim nonsense. Wrap that up with a great big bow of speculation and there you have it ( and you call my theory crazy ssshhhh !! )The bloodline is NOT in this theory at all, nor are the Morrocan Rif Mountain /Brussels Molenbeek St John sightings.
How would they know she's dead?Are you kidding?
The bloodline is NOT in this theory at all, nor are the Morrocan Rif Mountain /Brussels Molenbeek St John sightings.
So many sceptical peopkle were saying that it was impossible to abduct Madeleine in the time scale that I decided to work out how it might have happened. All I have aimed to do with sadies theory is show how the abduction could have easily been achieved and the reason why Tannerman might have vanished off the scene for 40 minutes. Where he went and why?
Does that trouble you Faith?
Why? There has tio be a reason £5%4%
Just reminded d me Sadie where the evidence is to take an 'abductor' to court, including the forensics to show such an event occurred.
9. He might have been ‘Smithman’. The Smiths saw someone, also carrying a child, at 10.00pm. It could well have been the abductor (Tannerman) still carrying his child around Praia da Luz.As I have explained earlier, it is possible especially with a break somewhere. The Staff quarters being a few yards up the same road as the Smiths sighting immediately comes to mind.
No abductor was carrying a child around Luz for 45 minutes. To believe that happened is complete madness. They were heading in different directions. One had long hair, one short. I don't have to explain any further the absurdity of such a claim.
No father parades through the streets carrying the corpse of his dead daughter for all to see (whilst his wifeis busy drawing attention to the child's disappearance to all and sundry) if he is intent on chucking it in a bin or hiding it under a bush - To believe that happened is complete madness.Complete madness, I agree
Perhaps you'll show me where I have failed to do that ?I haven't read anything of substance that you have said against sadies theory. Perhaps you are unable to find anything wrong with it?
The Smiths who saw the child wouldn't know she was dead. A deep sleeping child and a recent deceased child look exactly the same. There's no way you could tell if she was dead.No you are wrong. They dont look the same.
I haven't read anything of substance that you have said against sadies theory. Perhaps you are unable to find anything wrong with it?
I replied to this but as Eleanor is 'moderating' anything critical posted with regard to Sadie's theory is being deleted. Oh well it was always more fun watching this ridiculous thread than taking part. ?{)(**What specifically do you find ridiculous about this thread? And did you manage to find me the 3 examples I asked for, or were they conveniently deleted by Eleanor too?
I don't agree Elie. Child abductions occur for all sorts of reasons including child trafficking. In Sadie's theory, her abductor isn't a nutter but part of a sophisticated and organised crime syndication.The man who I believe has ordered the abduction, whilst brilliantly clever might be mentally unbalanced.
The bloodline is NOT in this theory at all, nor are the Morrocan Rif Mountain /Brussels Molenbeek St John sightings.
So many sceptical peopkle were saying that it was impossible to abduct Madeleine in the time scale that I decided to work out how it might have happened. All I have aimed to do with sadies theory is show how the abduction could have easily been achieved and the reason why Tannerman might have vanished off the scene for 40 minutes. Where he went and why?
Does that trouble you Faith?
Why? There has tio be a reason £5%4%
I don't blame the residents of Luz who dislike the mccanns...they are gullible fools who have believed a load of lies...and that is not their faultI agree. Too much propaganda put about. Disinformation against the Mccanns was rife from the PJ and PT media especially
This thread is about Sadie's theory in its entirety. You can't pick and choose which bits get discussed.The trouble is, some people only want to focus on the Why, and aren't remotely interested in discussing the How and When. Any ideas why that should be?
Which elements of Sadie's theory as précis-ed by Blonk do you find specifically crazy? You've mentioned stuff about bloodlines and Morocco which do not feature in this précis so let's put that to one side for now (extraneous to the actual theory of how and when Madeleine was abducted) and discuss the specifics. Got a problem with that?
The trouble is, some people only want to focus on the Why, and aren't remotely interested in discussing the How and When. Any ideas why that should be?
It's very easy to put together a plan on either side which explains the how and when, the why is more difficult.Is it? This is great news! Perhaps you could forward me a theory of the how and the when of parental involvement which makes perfect logical sense at your earliest convenience as I have been waiting to read one for nigh on 9 years.
Personally I would agree that the "why" of Sadie's theory is a little (shall we say) eccentric - anything about Jews and bloodlines is a nonstarter for me. Also, her views on what happened to Madeleine after the abduction and her view that it was she who was photographed on the back of a Moroccan peasant are deep into the realms of nuttiness (sorry Sadie, I do love you, and respect your right to hold this view but I do think it's 99.99% unlikely), however the how and the when of Sadie's abduction theory re the events of the night of 3rd MAy 2007 seems quite sound to me.You are entitled toyour views but there are two things thta i cannot disclose which might make you think differently about Morrocco and Molenbeek St John
You are entitled toyour views but there are two things thta i cannot disclose which might make you think differently about Morrocco and Molenbeek St John
But this particular theory is NOT about that. It is purely demonstrating that an abduction could have been readily achieved and also showing possible links between Tannerman and Smithman re what happened during the missing 40 minutes.
This thread is about your theory in its entirety.Some people are clearly only interested in the why, not in the entirety of the theory, how very, very odd. &%+((£
You haven't been reading Pfinder.
Tannerman was let down by the getaway driver so he was left to his own devices. Maybe he dropped into the OC Staff Quarters to get help from his accomplice, who I think was likely to be a female member of OC staff who Madeleine knew and trusted' Some phone calls and drink later and he was on his way again when The smiths saw him.
Now I know this clashes with your theory, but what I am saying is totally feasible. I rather think that we have proved over the months and years that your theory is not possible.
You have no evidence of a getaway car. He brings an abducted child to staff quarters. Don't be ridiculous. This wasn't pass the parcel. My theory is simple so it works. Until someone can explain why he was gone so long then he is prime suspect. He had the best opportunity and didn't leave until everyone was present at the table. His time connects to the Smith sighting who saw a lookalike deep sleeping child. It's not rocket science.Your theory is that the father of a missing child carried the uncovered corpse of his child through a holiday village, past more than half a dozen fellow holiday makers to some wasteland where he hurriedly hid her, and then hot-footed it back to the villa by which time the alarm had been raised by his hysterical wife (who just so happened to be "in on it"). He then scuttled off out again to re-hide the body, perhaps once perhaps twice AFTER searches had begun.
No he has two. Another one on the wall of 5A, I think. Maybe I am wrong, must look again.Technically you are indeed right. There is a light to the south casting the GNR officer's shadow north onto the garden wall of 5A.
I think that i am right.
Your theory is that the father of a missing child carried the uncovered corpse of his child through a holiday village, past more than half a dozen fellow holiday makers to some wasteland where he hurriedly hid her, and then hot-footed it back to the villa by which time the alarm had been raised by his hysterical wife (who just so happened to be "in on it"). He then scuttled off out again to re-hide the body, perhaps once perhaps twice AFTER searches had begun.
And they say Sadie's theory is bonkers!!
The wasteland is only 100 metres away - one minute to walk there and I don't think that's a busy part of Luz in the dark. Matt and Russell saw nobody on their checks so of course it's possible. There's no way you get go to the beach and back on a check. The Smiths sighting was after the alarm so in my theory it had to be two moves to keep an alibi unless more are involved.blah blah blah. You're theory is utterly ludicrous, no matter how many caveats and excuses you make for it.
blah blah blah. You're theory is utterly ludicrous, no matter how many caveats and excuses you make for it.
As an abduction is a possibility I have no problem with a theory suggesting how it could have been accomplished.Try turning it round for a moment and start trying to make it happen. Smooth off the rough edges.
This one does seem a little over complicated. As a 'planned abduction it is also extremely inefficient. We have a lookout who can't see the most important parts of the street. We have two involved in the actual abduction solely for the purpose of explaining an open window and shutters as far as I can see. We have the lookout communicating by lighting his/her lighter which involves the perps keeping their eyes glued to a balcony while trying to do the job. The lookout is on a public balcony where he could be challenged by a passing resident or a smoker like him. Next we have him moving through the block and exiting out of a garden gate but I don't know if the public could do that. Finally he is scared off because there are people around, when all he had to do was drive up the road, round the corner and pick up the carrier. Miles away in minutes. Good planners would have changed vehicles very quickly anyway, so even if his number was taken it wouldn't have mattered. Not that I can think of a reason why anyone would have taken it.
No moving cars were reported by those in the street, whatever the direction taken. No open window, curtains or shutters were noticed by the 9.30pm checker. A pile of cigarette butts were reported to be on the balcony by a person who shouldn't have been on the balcony himself imo. He seems to be the only person who was offered alternative accommodation while waiting for his flight home although he was on the same flight as everyone else. If the cigarette butts were left by the watcher his lighter must have been flickering like mad; very confusing for the perps.
It's a simple smart plan to keep an alibi. The first question the police will ask you is what is your alibi? We were dining out with our group of friends at the tapas restaurant.According to your absurd theory Gerry has no alibi.
Try turning it round for a moment and start trying to make it happen. Smooth off the rough edges.
Communication. Not by a mobile phone, surely. It doesn't make sense it was by mobile phone, does it? Voice and text messages are out. Put it on vibrate and the only thing you know is ... someone, somewhere is calling.
Therefore communication is likely to be by other means. Here's an idea that does not appear anywhere so far in the files. It is pure speculation, a hypothetical to get secure simple communication, within Sadie's theory.
The perps went to one of the local Chinese bazaars and bought two very cheap and cheerful signalling devices. Commonly called LASERS.
One was red. which meant stop, hide, or scarper. One was green, which means it was clear to go.
A communication system that is safer than mobile phones, dirt cheap, and practicably undetectable.
I am not saying it happened this way. I have no evidence to support that it happened this way. But it is going to be tough on anyone who claims to be sure it did not.
According to your absurd theory Gerry has no alibi.
There are 3 witnesses who saw the child in the apartment early evening 3rd, so that is fact IMO.
There are 0 witnesses who saw the child leave the apartment that evening, so that is nothing more than an assumption.
You may have to ask why his leaving time on the first timeline was 15 minutes after Matt's listening check when he left straight away according to Matt. That false time was changed for a reason.you seem to be suggesting that Matt is "in on it", kindly confirm or deny.
Short of aliens landing and abducting Madeleine almost all theories are "workable".Not according to your side in the early days. According to them it would have been impossible to abduct Madeleine. Amaral said the same, but sadies theory proves that it was so impossible after all.
No, really ? @)(++(*hey, still waiting for those 3 examples of loving parents covering up the accidental death of a child, how many more times will I have to ask? Remember, I always answer your questions, can you kindly do likewise?
Even Kate McCann now admits that Maddie probably never left Portugal. These Moroccan sightings are merely pie in the sky rubbish.I have knowledge that i cant share with you. If you knew that you might change your mind.
Sadie's continued insistence about little Bushra has become a fixation for her.
hey, still waiting for those 3 examples of loving parents covering up the accidental death of a child, how many more times will I have to ask? Remember, I always answer your questions, can you kindly do likewise?
So that single example of a child stolen to order........?What does that mean? I have told you I am unable to supply one (apart from those which involve babies, or children stolen for childless couples in China which you will obviously poo-poo). You won that argument, Well done. Now you claim you can supply many examples of loving parents covering up the tragic accidental death of a child. I have asked you to supply not many, but just 3. Over to you now.
What does that mean? I have told you I am unable to supply one (apart from those which involve babies, or children stolen for childless couples in China which you will obviously poo-poo). You won that argument, Well done. Now you claim you can supply many examples of loving parents covering up the tragic accidental death of a child. I have asked you to supply not many, but just 3. Over to you now.
Oh you know I would if I could Alfie but it'd be awfully off-topic. Now back to my victory 8(>((why don't you just be honest (like me) and admit you can't? Can you do honest discussion, because if you can't there's little point me wasting my time with you going forward.
Yes that's the balcony Sadie.Thanks pegasus 8((()*/
The 4 people dining on it did hear and see GM searching below.
why don't you just be honest (like me) and admit you can't? Can you do honest discussion, because if you can't there's little point me wasting my time with you going forward.
Absolutely nothing. No independent witness reportedly saw GM or MO going up & down the rear steps. No independent witness saw any of the Tapas group walking up the road & going into the front car-park.
Promise ?Sure. You are not a fair and honest debater. you demand answers from me which I respond to openly and honestly but don't have the good grace to reciprocate. On that basis I shall not engage with you directly again, nor respond to your shrill demands for answers, but I will reserve the right to comment on, mock and deride what you write as and when appropriate. Ta ra mate. 8(0(*
Sure. You are not a fair and honest debater. you demand answers from me which I respond to openly and honestly but don't have the good grace to reciprocate. On that basis I shall not engage with you directly again, nor respond to your shrill demands for answers, but I will reserve the right to comment on, mock and deride what you write as and when appropriate. Ta ra mate. 8(0(*
Just reminded d me Sadie where the evidence is to take an 'abductor' to court, including the forensics to show such an event occurred.
Thank you, Sadie.And then the lies by Pat Brown aided by Amaral make you wonder? Was she just ignorant and easily manipulated, or was she put up to it?... and why?
If that was how it was lit on the 3rd I can see why an intruder would choose to ignore entry (and very certainly exit) using the patio doors, even if s/he was aware they were unlocked.
If it was a planned abduction I think it was known.
There was so much cover at the front of the building that makes it an obvious choice. Overhanging trees ~ recessed front door entirely in the shadow ~ giving plenty of opportunity for an individual to stand unseen and take stock before moving away ~ also allowing multiple escape routes should it have been necessary to ditch the child and run.
That the beautiful trees were cut back and a spotlight was subsequently installed tends to suggest a belated risk assessment was carried out.
I suppose in a way we are all God's children ... but I understand there is some learned discussion going on about whether or not Jesus had descendants.
I would need to have sight of your family tree to be convinced of your claim ... but please don't bother, I'm not in the least interested.
This thread is about Sadie's theory in its entirety. You can't pick and choose which bits get discussed.For your information Slarti, "sadies Theory" was only about what i have talked about on this thread and in the original thread
This thread is about your theory in its entirety.No it is not.
Technically you are indeed right. There is a light to the south casting the GNR officer's shadow north onto the garden wall of 5A.I dont think that there was any additional lighting cios there are no other shadows that I can see.
The original point was about whether the street lights illuminate the stairs and patio. Or whether additional lighting was put in place to take the photo.
I am of the opinion the lighting was street lighting only. If this be so, we can compare the lighting on the patio area with the lighting from Mrs Fenn's apartment above, to give us a guide as to what was going on.
You have no evidence of a getaway car. He brings an abducted child to staff quarters. Don't be ridiculous. This wasn't pass the parcel. My theory is simple so it works. Until someone can explain why he was gone so long then he is prime suspect. He had the best opportunity and didn't leave until everyone was present at the table. His time connects to the Smith sighting who saw a lookalike deep sleeping child. It's not rocket science.Good tries PFinder but you aint even close
Your theory is that the father of a missing child carried the uncovered corpse of his child through a holiday village, past more than half a dozen fellow holiday makers to some wasteland where he hurriedly hid her, and then hot-footed it back to the villa by which time the alarm had been raised by his hysterical wife (who just so happened to be "in on it"). He then scuttled off out again to re-hide the body, perhaps once perhaps twice AFTER searches had begun.
And they say Sadie's theory is bonkers!!
The wasteland area is only 100 metres away - one minute to walk there and I don't think that's a busy part of Luz in the dark. Matt and Russell saw nobody on their checks so of course it's possible in that time frame. There's no way you get go to the beach and back on a check. The Smiths sighting was after the alarm so in my theory it had to be two moves to keep an alibi unless more are involved.
8@??)( Good post.
Surely PFinder can see the flaws inn her theory and posts? They have been explained to her many times.
I think PFs theory is better than elites abducting to order Jewish kids lolol
Apparently that's not Sadie's theory, that's just Sadie's theory. She seems to have either spilt her theory on Madleine's disappearance in two with part 1 being how and when and two being why or all the bloodline stuff is not relevant, off topic and needs deleting. However we have to setup another thread for Sadie's Theory (the sequel) or she won't discuss it.
Hmmmm.
at least Sadie has come up with a theory...wheras it seems you cannot
Apparently that's not Sadie's theory, that's just Sadie's theory. She seems to have either spilt her theory on Madleine's disappearance in two with part 1 being how and when and two being why or all the bloodline stuff is not relevant, off topic and needs deleting. However we have to setup another thread for Sadie's Theory (the sequel) or she won't discuss it.
Hmmmm.
Theories are easy.
well lets hear yours...I can guarantee it wont hold water
Here's one...Bai jove you've cracked it! Can we start a new thread to discuss this perfect theory?
Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out tothe car, drive off. Job done.
Not mine, just so simple that not sure why it isn't promoted.
Here's one...
Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out tothe car, drive off. Job done.
Not mine, just so simple that not sure why it isn't promoted.
as I said...you cannot provide a theory of your own...you just criticise everyone else
Any theories I have which involve the McCanns will remain private given the litigious nature of the said couple.
you mean because they are not supported by evidence and are therefore indefensible
There is no evidence that confirms any of the theories.
There is no evidence that confirms any of the theories.
There is no evidence that confirms any of the theories.
Any theories I have which involve the McCanns will remain private given the litigious nature of the said couple.We have a private part of the forum which cannot be accessed by non-members - why don't you use that to expound on your highly plausible and logical theory there? We won't tell, promise!
We have a private part of the forum which cannot be accessed by non-members - why don't you use that to expound on your highly plausible and logical theory there? We won't tell, promise!
You missed the confirm.
@)(++(*What's so funny?
Apparently that's not Sadie's theory, that's just Sadie's theory. She seems to have either spilt her theory on Madleine's disappearance in two with part 1 being how and when and two being why or all the bloodline stuff is not relevant, off topic and needs deleting. However we have to setup another thread for Sadie's Theory (the sequel) or she won't discuss it.Let's keep the original sadies theory clear of other distractions if you dont mind. I am already under too much pressure trying to answer questions on the basic original theory withouit being bombarded by other stuff. I am still several pages behind answering questions and comments and I am no longer going to stay up until all hours trying to catch up. Too old for that.
Hmmmm.
Oh sadie found your architecture thread which you thought was "mysteriously wiped" or at least a spin off,cheersOh, thank you mercury.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2440.0
Apparently that's not Sadie's theory, that's just Sadie's theory. She seems to have either spilt her theory on Madleine's disappearance in two with part 1 being how and when and two being why or all the bloodline stuff is not relevant, off topic and needs deleting. However we have to setup another thread for Sadie's Theory (the sequel) or she won't discuss it.There are lots of theories slarti, but I aint doing them all in one go. I am too old almost to manage this one theory. At present, I am tackling the only one that was called "Sadies Theory"
Hmmmm.
Here's one...perfect but it doesn't explain certain things
Person A is around the OC, sees the McCanns leaving the apartment by the patio, knows it is unlocked. Waits until they gone into the tapas. Drive up to back entrance of 5a, nips into apartment, picks up Madeleine (if she wakes just tell her taking to Daddy), out tothe car, drive off. Job done.
Not mine, just so simple that not sure why it isn't promoted.
Sadie's theory appears to be based on the idea that Tannerman and Smithman are the same person, unless I've misunderstood.Perfectly possible Carana, but more difficult to get it right IMO.
However, it's also possible that neither were carrying Madeleine (i.e., both are red herrings).
I still don't see what would necessarily exclude a lone operator.
Yep, I am very aware that they sound likie that. But the majority of the secret society groups that Dan Brown named are still there according to the internet
And the members in them do not just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
I am not going into it all again, but I have a multitude of FACTS, co-incidences galore and it seems as tho SY might well be following much of my (huge) theory, which fits together like a massive jigsaw. Remember, they made a piont of showing my small and large folders on Crimewatch and making a positive statement at the same time
That particular scene on Crimewatch appears to have been wiped from the internet, as do several photos etc that indicate other things. Strange how pertinent photos, videos and facts that prove things against certain parts of the PJ disappear, dontcha think ?
All these things point to Madeleine being alive in 2012, including photos of a little girl I believe to be her. These were taken exactly where I had worked out she was likely to be. Precisely there.
I knew the place and went searching there and found what I was looking for
Hope that answers your question.
Now if she was alive in 2012, then only an idiot would think she died in 2007.
It is up to you whether you believe me, or not, and as i have my hands tied and mouth zippered atm, I cant enlighten you any more.
My investigations looked forwrd; they were about where she was taken to afterwards and who was responsible. Not the minutiae of an abduction; that was the past. I soon found stuff that no-one else had even thought of looking for.
Compelling stuff, but I always know that I could be wrong .... However so much stuff that backed everything up makes me think that I got the essential part of it right.
I am not going into it all again, but I have a multitude of FACTS, co-incidences galore and it seems as tho SY might well be following much of my (huge) theory, which fits together like a massive jigsaw. Remember, they made a piont of showing my small and large folders on Crimewatch and making a positive statement at the same timeIf she was alive in 2012 who in their right mind would bring her back to the waste ground which SY in its well publicised searches went looking at.What else were they looking for with cadaver dogs?
That particular scene on Crimewatch appears to have been wiped from the internet, as do several photos etc that indicate other things. Strange how pertinent photos, videos and facts that prove things against certain parts of the PJ disappear, dontcha think ?
All these things point to Madeleine being alive in 2012, including photos of a little girl I believe to be her. These were taken exactly where I had worked out she was likely to be. Precisely there.
I knew the place and went searching there and found what I was looking for
Hope that answers your question.
Now if she was alive in 2012, then only an idiot would think she died in 2007.
It is up to you whether you believe me, or not, and as i have my hands tied and mouth zippered atm, I cant enlighten you any more.
No need to.
My investigations looked forwrd; they were about where she was taken to afterwards and who was responsible. Not the minutiae of an abduction; that was the past. I soon found stuff that no-one else had even thought of looking for.
Compelling stuff, but I always know that I could be wrong .... However so much stuff that backed everything up makes me think that I got the essential part of it right.
IMO you shouldn’t bring your unsubstantiated and unexplained theories on this forum. It is impossible to discuss them as you do not provide enough information and it also brings the forum and especially the supporters case into disrepute.
In my opinion, Sadie is as entitled as any other member of this forum to put her theories as long as those theories are not libellous.
It is my opinion that another theory is being discussed on the forum which does include posts which are libellous.
Sadie always adds that her theories are in her own opinion and adds that anyone is free to disagree with her.
She has the courage of her convictions and knows she opens herself to adverse criticism.
She is obviously a learned, well educated lady who has a wide range of knowledge.
She also is very quick to apologize if shown to be wrong.
It is my belief hat the forum has a wide and diverse range of opinions.
I feel your post was very unfair.
Tell me Erngath do you think Sadie’s folders were shown on Crimewatch ? Do you think the footage was then wiped from the internet ? Do you think that she has suffered a violent attack because of her interest in this case ?
In my opinion, Sadie is as entitled as any other member of this forum to put her theories as long as those theories are not libellous.
It is my opinion that another theory is being discussed on the forum which does include posts which are libellous.
Sadie always adds that her theories are in her own opinion and adds that anyone is free to disagree with her.
She has the courage of her convictions and knows she opens herself to adverse criticism.
She is obviously a learned, well educated lady who has a wide range of knowledge.
She also is very quick to apologize if shown to be wrong.
It is my belief that the forum has a wide and diverse range of opinions and abilities.
Everyone is entitled to post within forum rules.
I feel your post was very unfair.
In my opinion, Sadie is as entitled as any other member of this forum to put her theories as long as those theories are not libellous.
It is my opinion that another theory is being discussed on the forum which does include posts which are libellous.
Sadie always adds that her theories are in her own opinion and adds that anyone is free to disagree with her.
She has the courage of her convictions and knows she opens herself to adverse criticism.
She is obviously a learned, well educated lady who has a wide range of knowledge.
She also is very quick to apologize if shown to be wrong.
It is my belief that the forum has a wide and diverse range of opinions and abilities.
Everyone is entitled to post within forum rules.
I feel your post was very unfair.
I have shared my theory with the Policia Judiciaria and they seemed very interested in what I had to say. I believe they are following leads which fit in with what I said. I can't say any more, obviously. I may be wrong but I remain hopeful that I have helped them to progress their enquiries.
Does it involve santa? and have you been threatened by Templars since taking this courageous step?
There are many theories, and it takes a lot of effort to come to a comprehensive theory. I'd like to see more discussion on theories not less TBH.
There are many theories, and it takes a lot of effort to come to a comprehensive theory. I'd like to see more discussion on theories not less TBH.
There is a big difference between a theory and hints at perpetrators, motives and methods.I agree, that is why I said comprehensive theory.
I agree, that is why I said comprehensive theory.
I have yet to read any theory involving the McCanns which is remotely comprehensive. IMO .
Because it would be libellous without proof. Unlike alleged abductors who are fair game unless identified.
Such theories could be posted in the private area of the forum.
I haven't read any there which are remotely comprehensive.
IMO there isn’t a level of trust on here to allow a free exchange of ideas even in the Private area.
exactly you dont know who could run off and tell the mcanns or the sun etc do you??
IMO there isn’t a level of trust on here to allow a free exchange of ideas even in the Private area.
There are many theories, and it takes a lot of effort to come to a comprehensive theory. I'd like to see more discussion on theories not less TBH.
The problem with 'theories' in my opinion is that many of them suggest connections between this and that when there's no evidence that a connection exists. 'Theory' is just another word for guessing, speculating and assuming. Like the abduction theory, for example.
Good post.
Thanks. Trying to create a theory which explains everything is doomed to fail, I think. I'm not 'Deep Thought', so I limit myself to examining specific events and theorising about how and why they occurred. It takes a lot of effort to just do that. It took a few days for SIL and I to discover how the creches above main reception were accessed, for example. Now we know that visiting one of those places doesn't involve visiting both of them.
Sadie has her theories which she is entitled to share with us but it would be nice once in a while if she could provide some sort of evidence that SY or anyone else for that matter is taking it seriously.
The problem with 'theories' in my opinion is that many of them suggest connections between this and that when there's no evidence that a connection exists. 'Theory' is just another word for guessing, speculating and assuming. Like the abduction theory, for example.
What about amarals theory is that guessing...IMO yes.
Have you ever thought of launching a rescue attempt if you know where Madeleine is ? Be a shame not to stop her suffering if you can. I’m sure you’d get support from supporters on here who are all as eager to find her as you.I believe that I know where she was in 2012, which means that she was abducted.
If she was alive in 2012 who in their right mind would bring her back to the waste ground which SY in its well publicised searches went looking at.What else were they looking for with cadaver dogs?IMO they were anxious to rule out all other possibilities that had been mooted before taking on my theory, which I accept looks rather bizarre ... but SY were listening to it .... so tghey must have wondered.
IMO you shouldn’t bring your unsubstantiated and unexplained theories on this forum. It is impossible to discuss them as you do not provide enough information and it also brings the forum and especially the supporters case into disrepute.
In my opinion, Sadie is as entitled as any other member of this forum to put her theories as long as those theories are not libellous.
It is my opinion that another theory is being discussed on the forum which does include posts which are libellous.
Sadie always adds that her theories are in her own opinion and adds that anyone is free to disagree with her.
She has the courage of her convictions and knows she opens herself to adverse criticism.
She is obviously a learned, well educated lady who has a wide range of knowledge.
She also is very quick to apologize if shown to be wrong.
It is my belief that the forum has a wide and diverse range of opinions and abilities.
Everyone is entitled to post within forum rules.
I feel your post was very unfair.
I believe that I know where she was in 2012, which means that she was abducted.
You could start this rescue mission from where you think she was in 2012 ?Sadie has passed the information on to the relevant authorities , why would you expect Sadie to personally rescue Madeleine?
Sadie has passed the information on to the relevant authorities , why would you expect Sadie to personally rescue Madeleine?
Not personally but she could coordinate.Why would you hope that?
I’m afraid it was these kind of nonsense theories and ridiculous sightings, no matter how well meaning, that dogged down the first Portuguese investigation. Let’s hope that is happening again to OG.
Not personally but she could coordinate.That is just about hilarious, the thought of Sadie coordinating the SY and the PJ in their search for Madeleine McCann. The biggest change in culture would be for them to share information back to a member of the public.
I’m afraid it was these kind of nonsense theories and ridiculous sightings, no matter how well meaning, that dogged down the first Portuguese investigation. Let’s hope that is happening again to OG.
Why would you hope that?
Really ? You have to ask that ?Absolutely!
Absolutely!
Okay....because i don’t want this investigation to get snarled up with thousands of wasted police hours checking out ridiculous theories and sightings.Then you shouldn’t have written the opposite in your original post.
Then you shouldn’t have written the opposite in your original post.
I type too fast on the iPad.Read your posts before you submit them.
But I think you knew what I meant anyway.
Okay....because i don’t want this investigation to get snarled up with thousands of wasted police hours checking out ridiculous theories and sightings.
I type too fast on the iPad.Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
But I think you knew what I meant anyway.
You should also look elsewhere to the endless freedom of information requests and theories by sceptics sent to NSY and the Portuguese police.
IMO they were anxious to rule out all other possibilities that had been mooted before taking on my theory, which I accept looks rather bizarre ... but SY were listening to it .... so tghey must have wondered.
I cant have got everything right, but from the course people seem to be thinking SY have laterly taken, most of it seems to follow my findings and thoughts.
That is all I can say.
IMO they were anxious to rule out all other possibilities that had been mooted before taking on my theory, which I accept looks rather bizarre ... but SY were listening to it .... so tghey must have wondered.
I cant have got everything right, but from the course people seem to be thinking SY have laterly taken, most of it seems to follow my findings and thoughts.
That is all I can say.
Given that SY or the PJ aren't giving a running commentary what is their thinking?
Why are you asking that given that you are aware of the news blackout by the PJ and SY?
Read Sadies post she mentions SY line of thinking just trying to ascertain what it is.
Very easily.
Then imo you do not understand the evidence... IMO amaral had no more evidence to support it than Sadie
Then imo you do not understand the evidence... IMO amaral had no more evidence to support it than Sadie
Perhaps I'm following a different 'Sadie's Theory' but according to the one I understand Madeleine was alive in 2012, hence no freezer.Sadie's theory was being compared to Amaral's theory.
What has Amaral/freezer got to do with Sadie's Theory?
Sadie's theory was being compared to Amaral's theory.One is apparently plausible, the other not. IMO both are fantastical and implausible but for different reasons, however apparently it’s OK to say it about one but not the other, judging by some of the responses on this thread.
Sadie’s theory has no evidence, no names, no descriptions, pure guesswork as to method, has had people with portable forges to cast keys, shadowy elites, blood lines, second comings, templars, Jewish genealogy, brood mares and borrows too much from David Icke and James Bond.
Amaral’s theory is a plausible explanation which fits the facts of the case and doesn’t involve nebulous unknown forces.
If you equate the two, fine.
Perhaps I'm following a different 'Sadie's Theory' but according to the one I understand Madeleine was alive in 2012, hence no freezer.
What has Amaral/freezer got to do with Sadie's Theory?
Perhaps I'm following a different 'Sadie's Theory' but according to the one I understand Madeleine was alive in 2012, hence no freezer.Your opening post in this thread way back in 2016, "Sadie's theory" stated:
What has Amaral/freezer got to do with Sadie's Theory?
Unlike his idea that MI5 would have "case files" on the disappearance of the child of two provincial doctors on holiday when his view is that she had an accident behind a sofa while her parents were absent?
Or that US foreign intelligence agencies would have had satellite images of PdL that evening who are reluctant to reveal that Gerry was Smithman?
LOL. Seriously??
P.M. - Would it have been possible to go further, in gathering evidence, after what took place in September 20071, or not?
G.A. - As I said before, the investigation is an investigation that is interrupted, an investigation that needs to be concluded. I believe that it is possible to make progress, if it wasn't for lack of political will; now with political will, based on this note - which is only a note as you said, but remains an important note nevertheless between two ambassadors, from one ambassador to the US State Department, that must have the weight that it has. Hopefully now, it will also be disclosed those photos, those satellite images that we believe to be in the possession of the US authorities, that we, the Portuguese police mentioned first, and also requested, a request that was denied to us.
P.M. - In your understanding, what could those satellite images reveal?
G.A. - They can reveal who was the person that carried the child on that night on its way to the beach. According to an Irish couple statement, with an alleged 80% certainty, it was Gerald McCann himself. That could be the confirmation of that Irish couple's statement.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/12/goncalo-amaral-on-wikileaks-release.html
NB I haven't read through all this thread, just picking it up from the end at the moment.
A lot of supporters appear to want to discuss Amaral’s theory rather than Sadie’s. You have to wonder why?
Your opening post in this thread way back in 2016, "Sadie's theory" stated:
"Could we possibly have a thread on Sadie's theory?
I am happy to cut and paste various bits and pieces that have appeared over various threads over the last few days that relate to this theory.
There was something along the lines that Sadie's theory was buried within some other thread. I cannot find that post.
I think some of the material Sadie has researched may be important in the Madeleine case.
This is not to say I agree with everything Sadie believes.
But I happen to think she may have unearthed some information that is relevant.
May we have a thread on Sadie's theory? Like I said, I am happy to do the donkey work.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg308775#msg308775
In my opinion Sadie has contributed greatly to the sum of knowledge posted on this forum. She has always proved open to debate regarding the content of all her posts. For example
Child abduction in Portugal and beyond - is it really so prevalent?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3542.msg123851#msg123851
Sadie's theory, the watcher and a getaway car.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1327.msg37641#msg37641
Lisbon...beautiful architecture or dark secrets?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2440.0
When this thread took off again recently (from page 26) ... in my opinion there was no attempt made to debate with one who enjoys an enquiring mind.
Rather, I believe the immediate response was for some to adopt a shut down mode ... for example five members "liked" the following post:
"IMO you shouldn’t bring your unsubstantiated and unexplained theories on this forum. It is impossible to discuss them as you do not provide enough information and it also brings the forum and especially the supporters case into disrepute."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg469711#msg469711
Among the ill researched ridicule attacking Sadie's theory from thereon in was the following expansion which deflected the thread into newer waters:
"The problem with 'theories' in my opinion is that many of them suggest connections between this and that when there's no evidence that a connection exists. 'Theory' is just another word for guessing, speculating and assuming. Like the abduction theory, for example."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg469997#msg469997
Which in my opinion sums up the Amaral theory precisely; so in my opinion until the editors decide what is to be done with the now wide ranging aspects of this thread which even gives Brenda Leyland a mention http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg470096#msg470096 comparisons having been made with Amaral's theory ... merit mention of exactly what his theory involves. I hope that answers your question.
Whatever people think about Amaral's theory it is based on information available to all in the official case files. His hypothesising refers to facts contained in the files.No one has said they need to be similar.
Sadie's theory includes references to unproved ethnic origins, unproved beliefs and practices, the unproven existence of 'untouchable elites' etc. etc.
Two completely different types of theory in my opinion.
There seems to be quite a lot attached to Sadie's theory that sceptics including your good self are not too keen to have aired if the posts made starting with http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg469699#msg469699 are anything to go by.
Why bother unless Sadie has touched a nerve somewhere?
There seems to be quite a lot attached to Sadie's theory that sceptics including your good self are not too keen to have aired if the posts made starting with http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg469699#msg469699 are anything to go by.
Why bother unless Sadie has touched a nerve somewhere?
Read Sadies post she mentions SY line of thinking just trying to ascertain what it is.
I have also read that Sadie will not divulge anything specific she has given to Scotland Yard ... I believe someone was taking the proverbial about just that not many posts back.
I'm beginning to suspect a bit of goading here. I apologise if I've got you wrong ... but if I have not, please desist immediately. Thank you.
There seems to be quite a lot attached to Sadie's theory that sceptics including your good self are not too keen to have aired if the posts made starting with http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7059.msg469699#msg469699 are anything to go by.
Why bother unless Sadie has touched a nerve somewhere?
Whatever people think about Amaral's theory it is based on information available to all in the official case files. His hypothesising relates to that contained within the files.
Sadie's theory includes references to unproved ethnic origins, unproved beliefs and practices, the unproven existence of 'untouchable elites' etc. etc.
Two completely different types of theory in my opinion.
Do you support David Icke’s views ? If not, why not ?
Sadie's theory Faithlilly !!!
Mmmmm David Icke seems like catnip to supporters today.What are you on about? Are you trying to bait supporters by any chance?
I believe Sadie has always gone with the stolen to order theory but there really isn't anything to support it. No child smugglers have ever been identified as operating on the Algarve in 2007 and no reports of suspicious foreign gangs loitering around the Luz area. The location of Luz too is not ideal for a quick escape to Spain or North Africa, there really only is one main east west corridor, the A22 motorway, and the risk of that being blocked by GNR patrols would have been too great IMO as once you're on it there is no turning back. Personally I just don't buy it.Time of Kate's alarm - 10.05pm approx.
Time of Kate's alarm - 10.05pm approx.
Time of GNR arrival at 5A - 11.20pm approx.
Headstart - 1hr 15 mins approx.
Unless of course Madeleine vanished before 10.05pm, in which case the headstart is longer.
@Erngath
Perhaps you would like to keep me on the right path b y explaining why Sadies theory has weight i.e any kind of evidence at all. AND should be taken seriously.
I think Sadies theory is very well thought out.
There is evidence, well there was, the cigarette ends that the Police did not collect. Also there is evidence that there were men watching the area. The charity collectors collecting for a charity that didn't exist. A charity collector even went into an apartment, one witness said she found him staring at her child.
It is very easy to laugh and poke fun at someone's theory but there are not many who will actually come forward and say what their theories are.
(&^& That is evidence?
Were these abductors 'Jewish looking' were they wearing star of David perchance or even Templar robes as they went about their dirty deeds.
I don't have a theory simply because I wasn't there, and can't get to ask questions of those who were.
You haven't got a theory because you can't work one out can you?
Remember Amaral wasn't there either.
Time of Kate's alarm - 10.05pm approx.
Time of GNR arrival at 5A - 11.20pm approx.
Headstart - 1hr 15 mins approx.
Unless of course Madeleine vanished before 10.05pm, in which case the headstart is longer.
The open window/abductor story is from Kate McCann on discovering her daughter allegedly being abducted. This is a very important part of the case of missing MBM.
I know supporters don't like it when the parents stories are challenged, but you see this is a debating forum. I am well over the window story- I laughed at the idea of it way back in the day.
Distraught parents finding a window open in their child's bedroom and their child missing. Anyone would have jumped to the conclusion that an alleged abductor had come through the window.
You mocked at the idea that men had been watching 5a, when the Police were interested in the fact that the apartment had been watched IMO.
Madeleine was nearly four when she went missing on 3 May 2007 from the ground-floor holiday apartment in the Ocean Complex while her parents dined with friends at a nearby restaurant. Redwood believes the child may have been abducted in an organised, planned operation by a group of individuals who might have checked out the layout of the resort in the days before. Redwood said one reading of the evidence was that it was a kidnapping which had "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would have undoubtedly involved reconnaissance".
You say you want justice for Madeleine, the only way to have justice for Madeleine is to find the alleged person/s who snatched her IMO.
All based on a belief that Madeleine McCann was abducted. Selectively quoting Redwood works both ways;Let’s have the full quote shall we?
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
When a child disappears and the evidence is inconclusive all possibilities should be considered.
Let’s have the full quote shall we?
Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.
"These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance," he said.
"If you have been a victim of a similar crime please come forward even if you reported the incident to police in Portugal, or anywhere else, please do not assume we have been made aware of it."
There was also a "very close resonance" to some features of Madeleine's disappearance, said Redwood.
The above appearing under the following headline:
Madeleine McCann police seek intruder who attacked girls at holiday homes
Detectives investigating girl's disappearance look for dark-haired man who sexually abused five girls in Algarve
My quote (with a cite) was in reply to a previous selective quote (without a cite). I don't really have much interest in what Redwood said, to be honest. It's others who cling to his words in order to support their belief in the unproven abduction theory in my opinion.
My quote (with a cite) was in reply to a previous selective quote (without a cite). I don't really have much interest in what Redwood said, to be honest. It's others who cling to his words in order to support their belief in the unproven abduction theory in my opinion.The full quote makes it clear that the inherent implication in your selected quote is incorrect - IMO
Time of Kate's alarm - 10.05pm approx.
Time of GNR arrival at 5A - 11.20pm approx.
Headstart - 1hr 15 mins approx.
Unless of course Madeleine vanished before 10.05pm, in which case the headstart is longer.
Redwood also said this in 2012 ".. he "genuinely" believed Madeleine could be alive, though the team is following an equal line of inquiry that she might now be dead.''
That is from the Guardian but many other UK papers just focussed on the 'abduction' theory with many of them quoting Redwood in headlines as saying she was alive and ignoring the fact he also said she might be dead.
2 years later in 2014 sniffer dogs were looking for a body, and SY were quoted,
"Scotland Yard said there was still a "substantial amount of work yet to be completed" in its investigation, and that "more activity" was expected to begin shortly.
"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally," it said.''
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html)
So they were still seriously pursuing this equal line of enquiry 2 years later. IMO Amaral's was also systematically looking at the possibility of a death and hiding of a body but he only had a few months in which he could develop and test that theory.
There are plenty of cases where police suspect murder / death and don't have a full comprehensive theory such as the Kate Prout case, the Claudia Lawrence case. Arrests were made to question suspects and try and fill in the circumstances of what exactly happened. What they did have was a person that had completely disappeared and a motive. IMO this is very similar to Amaral's theory.
I agree with John that the 'stealing to order / trafficking theory' is not a very plausible one. Where is the motive to perform such a risky kidnap of a young girl on holiday when families are actually willing to sell children throughout the world? There is also no evidence of these trafficking gangs in the area at the time. Redwood was looking at stranger abduction as a possibility, this does not mean it was an organised smuggling gang he was looking at.
IMO the trafficking of young European children from Portugal as presented by the UK media is a myth, African children are brought IN and this is documented. The majority of these children are also older than 10 which is also documented. There was also 1 documented case of a boy kidnapped in Portugal by a paeodophile gang and trafficked out but again he was older at 11 years old and this is just 1 case over many years.
"Visiting Portugal last year, it heard that of the 226 people identified as victims of trafficking over the last four years, 36 of these were children - five of them less than 10 years old.
Of those 36, 15 appear to have gone missing.
The “majority” of children were brought into this country by sex trafficking networks. Most came from African countries (Nigeria, Angola, Guinea-Bissau), though three were identified as coming from Romania. Of the total, only five children were trafficked for non-sexual purposes: three for ‘work exploitation’ (modern-day slavery) and two for “criminal activities”.
http://portugalresident.com/child-sex-trafficking-in-portugal-authorities-%E2%80%98lose%E2%80%99-almost-half-%E2%80%98rescued-children%E2%80%99 (http://portugalresident.com/child-sex-trafficking-in-portugal-authorities-%E2%80%98lose%E2%80%99-almost-half-%E2%80%98rescued-children%E2%80%99)
Police have to ahve evidence to arrest people...they slso base their theories on evidence...according to the PJ there is no evidence against the mccanns...amaral thought he had evidence...imo he just didnt understand
Your trust the PJ to tell you the truth? I think that's a bit naive given their track record in 2007.
Redwood also said this in 2012 ".. he "genuinely" believed Madeleine could be alive, though the team is following an equal line of inquiry that she might now be dead.''
That is from the Guardian but many other UK papers just focussed on the 'abduction' theory with many of them quoting Redwood in headlines as saying she was alive and ignoring the fact he also said she might be dead.
2 years later in 2014 sniffer dogs were looking for a body, and SY were quoted,
"Scotland Yard said there was still a "substantial amount of work yet to be completed" in its investigation, and that "more activity" was expected to begin shortly.
"This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally," it said.''
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/11/world/europe/portugal-uk-mccann/index.html)
So they were still seriously pursuing this equal line of enquiry 2 years later. IMO Amaral's was also systematically looking at the possibility of a death and hiding of a body but he only had a few months in which he could develop and test that theory.
There are plenty of cases where police suspect murder / death and don't have a full comprehensive theory such as the Kate Prout case, the Claudia Lawrence case. Arrests were made to question suspects and try and fill in the circumstances of what exactly happened. What they did have was a person that had completely disappeared and a motive. IMO this is very similar to Amaral's theory.
I agree with John that the 'stealing to order / trafficking theory' is not a very plausible one. Where is the motive to perform such a risky kidnap of a young girl on holiday when families are actually willing to sell children throughout the world? There is also no evidence of these trafficking gangs in the area at the time. Redwood was looking at stranger abduction as a possibility, this does not mean it was an organised smuggling gang he was looking at.
IMO the trafficking of young European children from Portugal as presented by the UK media is a myth, African children are brought IN and this is documented. The majority of these children are also older than 10 which is also documented. There was also 1 documented case of a boy kidnapped in Portugal by a paeodophile gang and trafficked out but again he was older at 11 years old and this is just 1 case over many years.
"Visiting Portugal last year, it heard that of the 226 people identified as victims of trafficking over the last four years, 36 of these were children - five of them less than 10 years old.
Of those 36, 15 appear to have gone missing.
The “majority” of children were brought into this country by sex trafficking networks. Most came from African countries (Nigeria, Angola, Guinea-Bissau), though three were identified as coming from Romania. Of the total, only five children were trafficked for non-sexual purposes: three for ‘work exploitation’ (modern-day slavery) and two for “criminal activities”.
http://portugalresident.com/child-sex-trafficking-in-portugal-authorities-%E2%80%98lose%E2%80%99-almost-half-%E2%80%98rescued-children%E2%80%99 (http://portugalresident.com/child-sex-trafficking-in-portugal-authorities-%E2%80%98lose%E2%80%99-almost-half-%E2%80%98rescued-children%E2%80%99)
Yes Redwood did say he thought Madeleine was alive, and he did say she may be dead, in other words IMO whoever abducted her had murdered her. Not that the McCann's had hidden her body.
The Police were digging the waste ground in Portugal, but I believe that was because someone came forward and said they heard men talking and one said 'why did you bring the body here'. So IMO they were digging up the waste ground to see if she had been buried there. They found nothing.
What risky abduction are you talking about? The police believe they had been watching 5a they knew the children were alone every evening. They knew the parents checked and when they checked they had it all planned out. The only hiccups were that firstly Gerry met Jez and they were talking in the road, secondly that Jane was going to take over looking after her daughter who was ill both of these were not planned for. Otherwise they knew they had half an hour before anyone went to 5a again.
So you know that no child is ever taken to be trafficked n Portugal do you? Without a doubt? Amaral said no one could have entered the apartment with the door locked. Yet a man was entering apartments to sexually abuse children, when the apartments were secured and the parents were in the apartments. Nothing is ever bullet proof.
Your trust the PJ to tell you the truth? I think that's a bit naive given their track record in 2007.you don't trust the PJ?
Yes Redwood did say he thought Madeleine was alive, and he did say she may be dead, in other words IMO whoever abducted her had murdered her. Not that the McCann's had hidden her body.
The Police were digging the waste ground in Portugal, but I believe that was because someone came forward and said they heard men talking and one said 'why did you bring the body here'. So IMO they were digging up the waste ground to see if she had been buried there. They found nothing.
What risky abduction are you talking about? The police believe they had been watching 5a they knew the children were alone every evening. They knew the parents checked and when they checked they had it all planned out. The only hiccups were that firstly Gerry met Jez and they were talking in the road, secondly that Jane was going to take over looking after her daughter who was ill both of these were not planned for. Otherwise they knew they had half an hour before anyone went to 5a again.
So you know that no child is ever taken to be trafficked n Portugal do you? Without a doubt? Amaral said no one could have entered the apartment with the door locked. Yet a man was entering apartments to sexually abuse children, when the apartments were secured and the parents were in the apartments. Nothing is ever bullet proof.
you don't trust the PJ?
I don't trust anyone.
But....but... but you have to trust the PJ goddammit !!! Call yourself a sceptic !! @)(++(*
No,No. In other words he really had no idea and was hedging his bets. IMO
But....but... but you have to trust the PJ goddammit !!! Call yourself a sceptic !! @)(++(*
Police have to ahve evidence to arrest people...they slso base their theories on evidence...according to the PJ there is no evidence against the mccanns...amaral thought he had evidence...he just didnt understand
I think that it's your opinion there's 'no evidence' and Amaral 'didn't understand'. Not having enough evidence or evidence being inclusive is not the same as 'no evidence'. Yes the PJ didn't have enough evidence to make a case of a criminal act but again, that doesn't equal 'no evidence'. If other evidence should come to light, then the inconclusive evidence could have a different status.Your initial mistake and amarals and the rest of the PJ is, the alerts are not evidence IMO... Amaral got it wrong IMO... The present Portuguese investigation say there is no evidence against the McCann's.... The archiving report said the same... SY and the PJ say the McCanns are not suspects.... I think it's pretty clear?
Here is how the police built a case against Adrian Prout ;
"Mr Pixton explained how the prosecution service built its case from Mrs Prout’s disappearance on November 5 2007 to Prout’s trial, which started on January 12 this year.
He said: “We had a case where no body was ever found and therefore no creating of a forensic link between Adrian Prout and his wife’s disappearance.
“What we did have was evidence to show that this crime was premeditated, Adrian Prout had a means of concealing her body and also a reason to do so.."
https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/guilty-wealthy-landowner-who-killed-29174 (https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/guilty-wealthy-landowner-who-killed-29174)
'No forensic link' but evidence of motive and a means of concealment. Put this together with a person disappearing off the face of the earth and the dog alerts and they managed to build a strong case. Amaral was trying to uncover a motive and he had only a few months to work on that where as the Prout case took 3 years to bring to court.
Yes Redwood did say he thought Madeleine was alive, and he did say she may be dead, in other words IMO whoever abducted her had murdered her. Not that the McCann's had hidden her body.
The Police were digging the waste ground in Portugal, but I believe that was because someone came forward and said they heard men talking and one said 'why did you bring the body here'. So IMO they were digging up the waste ground to see if she had been buried there. They found nothing.
What risky abduction are you talking about? The police believe they had been watching 5a they knew the children were alone every evening. They knew the parents checked and when they checked they had it all planned out. The only hiccups were that firstly Gerry met Jez and they were talking in the road, secondly that Jane was going to take over looking after her daughter who was ill both of these were not planned for. Otherwise they knew they had half an hour before anyone went to 5a again.
So you know that no child is ever taken to be trafficked n Portugal do you? Without a doubt? Amaral said no one could have entered the apartment with the door locked. Yet a man was entering apartments to sexually abuse children, when the apartments were secured and the parents were in the apartments. Nothing is ever bullet proof.
Your initial mistake and amarals and the rest of the PJ is, the alerts are not evidence IMO... Amaral got it wrong IMO... The present Portuguese investigation say there is no evidence against the McCann's.... The archiving report said the same... SY and the PJ say the McCanns are not suspects.... I think it's pretty clear?
I believe she is more likely dead as P.J. have said in 2008 and Redwood and S.Y. were giving this serious thought and investigating it 'systematically'. The whole point of investigating that theory is to figure out who did it and how, something Amaral was attacked for, not when he questioned Murat but at least the McCanns.Many criminal types who enter houses illegally or who are sexual predators actually enjoy the risk, you may not be aware of this?
We have no idea what led them to dig on waste ground in 2014 and what's in the papers from anonymous sources is speculation. S.Y. were using cadaver dogs on that search though, which is a fact. They obviously have some amount of faith in them.
A stranger abduction would be 'risky' in my opinion because it was going into a house in between parents and friends checking the house and going up and down the road constantly. Most children are lured away into vehicles or snatched from crowded places. If there was evidence of an abductor in the apartment then of course that trumps a statistic - but there isn't yet.
I didn't say no child has ever been trafficked from Portugal, in fact I mentioned 1 boy was confirmed as trafficked over many years compared to a few hundred being brought into Portugal. What I was saying is that in most cases children are trafficked IN to Portugal and are older, 11 +. I provided evidence. The sexual abuse of children in homes or outside them is not the same as child trafficking.
Your initial mistake and amarals and the rest of the PJ is, the alerts are not evidence IMO... Amaral got it wrong IMO... The present Portuguese investigation say there is no evidence against the McCann's.... The archiving report said the same... SY and the PJ say the McCanns are not suspects.... I think it's pretty clear?
Many criminal types who enter houses illegally or who are sexual predators actually enjoy the risk, you may not be aware of this?
Is it acceptable to assume that a pile of cigarette butts on a balcony were connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? Perhaps, if there was evidence that they were all left there on 3rd May, but there is no such evidence. Someone in a nearby apartment could have had one cigarette each evening for several evenings. Someone could have stood there smoking on the evening of 3rd watching the events in and around 5A. In my opinion they are not evidence of anything untoward.
yes I am aware of that. It still remains to be something extremely rare with children of that age group. Burglars who like the thrill of breaking and entering are not likely to take a child on a whim , so that theory is far fetched IMO.How do you know?! Anyone who breaks into a house to steal a child is taking a big risk, even if they are watching the house to avoid being caught.
Redwood also mentioned a 'planned abduction'. Watching a house and planning a stealthy crime that slots perfectly between adults constantly checking would mean they weren't thrill seeking in that case.
How do you know?! Anyone who breaks into a house to steal a child is taking a big risk, even if they are watching the house to avoid being caught.
It's not that clear when some courts have used dog alerts as evidence. So were they mistaken?
This is from the Bianca Jones trial. Dog alerts accepted as evidence as the court were satisfied with the training and the methods the dog handlers used.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html)
IMO, abducting a child from a communal bedroom raises all sorts of potential problems with screaming distressed children.It’s a risk, but an abductor can easily subdue a 4 year old child if necessary.
How do you know?! Anyone who breaks into a house to steal a child is taking a big risk, even if they are watching the house to avoid being caught.
It's contradictory, you are not really trying to thrill seek if you plan something to avoid being caught.Do you have a cite for criminals who pre-plan their crimes also being risk averse? I mean, I could spend six months planning to climb Mt Everest but I'd still be fully aware of what a risky venture I was undertaking.
The police analyse crime types, they are aware of organised vs. chaotic crimes where a child might be taken by a predator on a whim. They will know how these cases will differ in terms of what evidence should be there. It's goes along with logic and evidence to try and work out the possibilities. An organised criminal will plan not to be caught, a disorganised criminal would not and may panic but would be likely to leave evidence as not everything was planned.
How a disorganised 'whim' child snatcher would hide a body or child so well is anyone's guess. Someone who planned would be more likely to get away with it.
One of the reasons to do a reconstruction is to work out what kind of criminal you are dealing with in terms of organisation and pre-planning.
Do you have a cite for criminals who pre-plan their crimes also being risk averse? I mean, I could spend six months planning to climb Mt Everest but I'd still be fully aware of what a risky venture I was undertaking.
Nothing to do with risk aversion, not sure why you have brought it up?Explain.
Mark Harrison said no inferences can be drawn from the alerts... No evidential value or reliability... That's how it is
Not quite according to his report. There is a lead to follow up and SY searching for a body is no surprise.
"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Explain.
He says it may suggest.... But he also says, no inference can be drawn
It's a lead to follow up. The alerts require corroborating evidence.
"The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It was only with the property involved with the McCann's that the digs were brought back ti places they previously ignored... The dogs ignored, all the cars including the McCann's but were only brought back to the McCann's car
Mark Harrison said no inferences can be drawn from the alerts... No evidential value or reliability... That's how it is
So you are disregarding the transcript from the Bianca Jones case where the court concluded dog alerts can be accepted as evidence and the FBI canine expert says he believed those dogs to be higher than 90% accurate?
You believe no reliability/ evidence but a canine expert at the FBI and a court in the USA certainly didn't. It just so happens to be Martin Grime and one of his dogs the court are talking about.
You brought up risk averse, Gertrude talked of Organised vs Disorganised Criminals.There's actually quite a lot of meat on those bones.
You brought up risk averse, Gertrude talked of Organised vs Disorganised Criminals.No, I responded to Gertrudes post in which she wrote:
I sometimes wonder what supporters expected the PJ to do, pick up every cigarette butt within a mile radius and test it for DNA....just in case ?In NZ they would have to be quick to beat the down and out people looking for cigarette butts to smoke.
It's contradictory, you are not really trying to thrill seek if you plan something to avoid being caught.And yet some people seem to think the McCanns managed it with the minimum amount of pre-planning, and in a foreign country, without immediate easy access to a car, shovels, freezers, wood chippers, coffins, you name it.
The police analyse crime types, they are aware of organised vs. chaotic crimes where a child might be taken by a predator on a whim. They will know how these cases will differ in terms of what evidence should be there. It's goes along with logic and evidence to try and work out the possibilities. An organised criminal will plan not to be caught, a disorganised criminal would not and may panic but would be likely to leave evidence as not everything was planned.
How a disorganised 'whim' child snatcher would hide a body or child so well is anyone's guess. Someone who planned would be more likely to get away with it.
One of the reasons to do a reconstruction is to work out what kind of criminal you are dealing with in terms of organisation and pre-planning.
I f Maddie was abducted as I believe she almost certainly was... Then we have no idea exactly why... Its impossible to say... Could be organised... Disorganised or anything in between
And yet some people seem to think the McCanns managed it with the minimum amount of pre-planning, and in a foreign country, without immediate easy access to a car, shovels, freezers, wood chippers, coffins, you name it.
We have no idea what amount of planning was involved for who-ever managed to 'vanish' this child.There you go then.
The complete concealment of a child or child's body would indicate planning, a very difficult thing to do in the time line suggested it would seem.
We have no idea what amount of planning was involved for who-ever managed to 'vanish' this child.
The complete concealment of a child or child's body would indicate planning, a very difficult thing to do in the time line suggested it would seem.
A belief is one thing Dave, proof is something else.
according to experts...despatches programme...not difficult at all......Have you not herad about all the wells around PDL...very easy to vanish a childThe perpetrator would need to know where they are and have a way of getting to them. - plans in other words if the wells were part of the equation.
The perpetrator would need to know where they are and have a way of getting to them. - plans in other words if the wells were part of the equation.
We have no idea what amount of planning was involved for who-ever managed to 'vanish' this child.
The complete concealment of a child or child's body would indicate planning, a very difficult thing to do in the time line suggested it would seem.
In an opportunist abduction, any element of planning to conceal a body would come after the initial crime. The longer the perpetrator remains unknown, the greater length of time for planning.
The perpetrator would need to know where they are and have a way of getting to them. - plans in other words if the wells were part of the equation.
The McCann apartment was vulnerable and overlooked from the front from the side and very possibly from the rear.
Recent photographs show that in recognition of that vulnerability spotlights have been installed and security grilles on the windows and the side gate which has been modified.
The apartment was a fixture and easily observed.
The inhabitants were transient.
Perhaps a plan of long standing was set in motion when an appropriate child appeared on the scene.
In my opinion the only miscalculation was that the reaction to her loss activated the parents of the child to do what very few, if any other parents in that situation could have or would have been capable of doing.
The McCann apartment was vulnerable and overlooked from the front from the side and very possibly from the rear.
Recent photographs show that in recognition of that vulnerability spotlights have been installed and security grilles on the windows and the side gate which has been modified.
The apartment was a fixture and easily observed.
The inhabitants were transient.
Perhaps a plan of long standing was set in motion when an appropriate child appeared on the scene.
In my opinion the only miscalculation was that the reaction to her loss activated the parents of the child to do what very few, if any other parents in that situation could have or would have been capable of doing.
so any local person would know all about the wells......not necessary to have plans in advanceThat is about right. I'd say if she was hidden in a well it was a local person.
according to experts...despatches programme...not difficult at all......Have you not herad about all the wells around PDL...very easy to vanish a child
There were more checks going on that night than any other. Only the village idiot would attempt it with 3 children in one room with regular checks going on in and around that apartment.
That is about right. I'd say if she was hidden in a well it was a local person.
Yes, it seems weird that this once only night MBM was checked a few times more, and had to physical checks -one for the 'doting dad' moment and the other from the mother who claims she was abducted. seems incredible.
Are you talking about temporary storage or permanent disposal?The wells I've seen are really deep. If a body is thrown in there it was there for good IMO.
As pathfinder said, not easy in the timeline given by the McCanns and friends.Why not. If Madeleine had been wandering it would have taken only seconds for someone to snatch her.
The experts in the despatches programme were hardly going to go in to detail of how one of the McCanns or tapas lot could have been involved were they? I suspect like Colin Sutton, they were asked to come up with likely scenarios for each possible theory ( trafficking, abduction, wandered ) and then the media select what they want to present and some parts not at all.
With the stranger abduction theory we still have the vast problem of that fitting into the timeline given. Just because there are places a child could have been hidden doesn't mean it's likely someone got into 5a, picked up a child and got out between parents coming up and down the road, and then hid the child without anyone noticing at all, no crying Madeleine, no crying twins - all in the short time available.
The wells I've seen are really deep. If a body is thrown in there it was there for good IMO.
Why not. If Madeleine had been wandering it would have taken only seconds for someone to snatch her.
As pathfinder said, not easy in the timeline given by the McCanns and friends.
The experts in the despatches programme were hardly going to go in to detail of how one of the McCanns or tapas lot could have been involved were they? I suspect like Colin Sutton, they were asked to come up with likely scenarios for each possible theory ( trafficking, abduction, wandered ) and then the media select what they want to present and some parts not at all.
With the stranger abduction theory we still have the vast problem of that fitting into the timeline given. Just because there are places a child could have been hidden doesn't mean it's likely someone got into 5a, picked up a child and got out between parents coming up and down the road, and then hid the child without anyone noticing at all, no crying Madeleine, no crying twins - all in the short time available.
'Why not' is not really the right question I feel, it is about being in the realms of possibility. Theories where a child just happened to wander out down dark steps and a predator was prowling around on the off chance, in between parents walking up and down and said off chance predator manages to hide the child without a trace is getting more and more complex and less probable IMO.
If this is Off topic I apologise, I would be glad to get back to Sadie's theory but it hasn't really been explained here on this thread. I believe it is based around a planned stranger abduction?
'Why not' is not really the right question I feel, it is about being in the realms of possibility. Theories where a child just happened to wander out down dark steps and a predator was prowling around on the off chance, in between parents walking up and down and said off chance predator manages to hide the child without a trace is getting more and more complex and less probable IMO.
If this is Off topic I apologise, I would be glad to get back to Sadie's theory but it hasn't really been explained here on this thread. I believe it is based around a planned stranger abduction?
We got some religious nutters on here to be offended?Maybe, who knows.
We got some religious nutters on here to be offended?
'Why not' is not really the right question I feel, it is about being in the realms of possibility. Theories where a child just happened to wander out down dark steps and a predator was prowling around on the off chance, in between parents walking up and down and said off chance predator manages to hide the child without a trace is getting more and more complex and less probable IMO.
If this is Off topic I apologise, I would be glad to get back to Sadie's theory but it hasn't really been explained here on this thread. I believe it is based around a planned stranger abduction?
Sadie's theory is not set in tablets of stone, it is added to and subtracted from during discussion. Somewhere on this thread I have posted three separate links on the forum to some aspects ... but I am sure there may be more.
Yes, Sadie does subscribe to a 'planned stranger abduction.'
so any local person would know all about the wells......not necessary to have plans in advance
We got some religious nutters on here to be offended?
Probably not but five will get you ten someone knows one on whose behalf they may be offended just to show how empathic they are.
Miss Taken Identity
I've declared it often before but if it offends you in any way, please do report my post.
I was trying to intimate that having faith does not equate to being a religious nutter.
I won't mind if my post is deleted as being off topic.
yes! 1....2.....3...
why would I possibly be offended - I read words I don't take anything supporters say seriously why would I care?
No one on this forum implied or insinuated you were a religious nutter, but if you want to play victim go on right ahead.
Jassi was on topic discussing Sadies theory about MBM being stolen by Jews - who would be defined as religious nutters if they stole a child for her blood. and it was 'tongue in cheek'. none of us sceptics as far as I am aware, believe Jews stole MBM for her bloodline.
Interesting that you don't take anything said by supporters seriously.
A little bit blinkered if I might say so.
Not willing to see anything that could influence your point of view?
Be assured I fortunately have never ever felt like "a victim" in all my quite long life and for that I am eternally grateful.
Apart from Carana who sometimes posts relevant information worth reading and debates like someone really interested in the case. The rest of the supporters have nothing worth reading which would try to influence my point of view of which you have no notion of knowing.If none of us apart from Carana ever write anything worth reading why do you actually read our posts? Are you really that desperate for something to read?
You have claimed victim status by 'having to let people know you have a faith and are not a religious nutter- when no one claimed you were.
Back on topic. Accusing Jews of stealing MBM without any evidence of such a claim is in my opinion a racist .
Apart from Carana who sometimes posts relevant information worth reading and debates like someone really interested in the case. The rest of the supporters have nothing worth reading which would try to influence my point of view of which you have no notion of knowing.
You have claimed victim status by 'having to let people know you have a faith and are not a religious nutter- when no one claimed you were.
Back on topic. Accusing Jews of stealing MBM without any evidence of such a claim is in my opinion a racist .
Sadie's theory, please.
Is there one? genuine question.
You could make a start on the revelation by Sadie, that Maddie is a Jewish name? and may be a reason for her abductionCorrection
or how about the Knights Templar implication, or perhaps you like the ole 'masons what dun it' ? all a great read... Good luck with that.
Correction
I said that Beth is a Jewish name
Tell me Erngath do you think Sadie’s folders were shown on Crimewatch ? Do you think the footage was then wiped from the internet ? Do you think that she has suffered a violent attack because of her interest in this case ?Hi Faith
Apart from Carana who sometimes posts relevant information worth reading and debates like someone really interested in the case. The rest of the supporters have nothing worth reading which would try to influence my point of view of which you have no notion of knowing.
You have claimed victim status by 'having to let people know you have a faith and are not a religious nutter- when no one claimed you were.
Back on topic. Accusing Jews of stealing MBM without any evidence of such a claim is in my opinion a racist .
Hi Faith
So where has the March 2014 Madeleine Mccann Crimewatch Video vanished to?
The above Youtube Video was the second of the two special Madeleine Mccann Crimewatch programs. The first in Oct 2013 is still available.
To remind posters and readers, the missing March 2014 Crimewatch program had a sequence in the main Operations room for Operation Grange [Belgravia Police Station]. This sequence started at about 3.49 on the video and at the back of the room was a very large set of bookshelves full of box-folders. All the folders bar two were beige coloured.
On the top shelf, in prime position right in the middle (and in splendid isolation in a "sea " of beige) was a lilac coloured folder, exactly the same as the largest one I sent in. On the second or third shelf down towards the RH end was a dark folder which I surmised might be Bennetts folder.
Additionally the camera picked up an officer walking towards the camera carrying a slimmer lilac transparent folder, which was also mine. When massively enlarged it showed my scrawly writing on the label and the unusual black edged punch pockets that i had used inside .... and a background voice simultaneously said
**** "This careful analysis has led to an important discovery ****
I am sure some of you will recall the above scene in the Operations Room of Operation Grange.
Well it has GONE now, seemingly wiped off the internet
I ask again:
*** So where has the March 2014 Madeleine Mccann Crimewatch video vanished to? ***
Hi Faith
So where has the March 2014 Madeleine Mccann Crimewatch Video vanished to?
The above Youtube Video was the second of the two special Madeleine Mccann Crimewatch programs. The first in Oct 2013 is still available.
To remind posters and readers, the missing March 2014 Crimewatch program had a sequence in the main Operations room for Operation Grange [Belgravia Police Station]. This sequence started at about 3.49 on the video and at the back of the room was a very large set of bookshelves full of box-folders. All the folders bar two were beige coloured.
On the top shelf, in prime position right in the middle (and in splendid isolation in a "sea " of beige) was a lilac coloured folder, exactly the same as the largest one I sent in. On the second or third shelf down towards the RH end was a dark folder which I surmised might be Bennetts folder.
Additionally the camera picked up an officer walking towards the camera carrying a slimmer lilac transparent folder, which was also mine. When massively enlarged it showed my scrawly writing on the label and the unusual black edged punch pockets that i had used inside .... and a background voice simultaneously said
**** "This careful analysis has led to an important discovery ****
I am sure some of you will recall the above scene in the Operations Room of Operation Grange.
Well it has GONE now, seemingly wiped off the internet
I ask again:
*** So where has the March 2014 Madeleine Mccann Crimewatch video vanished to? ***
I agree, that is why I said comprehensive theory.Oh Gawd, I have worked out so many theories and this thread is a jumble of some of the minor ones..
Starting at appx 2:58 I can see the footage you describe, Sadie.
Then imo you do not understand the evidence... IMO amaral had no more evidence to support it than SadieI believe that i have considerably more evidence than Amaral.
Oh Gawd, I have worked out so many theories and this thread is a jumble of some of the minor ones..
On here, I haven't even touched my main theory that went to SY. I haven't opened that massive script to you ...soz, am unable to. But a number of you will be pleased to know that I have slowed down a great deal.
I have done my duty and passed on the main stuff. Now I can spend time investigating my origins ... and catching up with friends who I have sorely neglected
Sorry that I am unable to email my friends on here because once again my NEW computer has been compromised .... and i am not in the business of passing on viruses, Malware and bugs etc. I miss our chats
(((((HUGS))))) to you all.
I believe Sadie has always gone with the stolen to order theory but there really isn't anything to support it. No child smugglers have ever been identified as operating on the Algarve in 2007 and no reports of suspicious foreign gangs loitering around the Luz area. The location of Luz too is not ideal for a quick escape to Spain or North Africa, there really only is one main east west corridor, the A22 motorway, and the risk of that being blocked by GNR patrols would have been too great IMO as once you're on it there is no turning back. Personally I just don't buy it.Before Madeleine vanished, several people reported a man watching 5A.
Have you any evidence of a getaway vehicle Sadie? I think most abductions start there. How did they make Madeleine disappear? She didn't disappear in my theory but was seen by eye witnesses and that is actual real evidence!IMO I have real evidence.
You want once again to ignore the evidence of the experts who visited Luz......they were quite clear an abduction was possible...SY have said based on teh evidence they believe an abduction was possible...The PJ have said abduction is possible...
No I have not ignored it at all. I said that just because it could happen doesn't mean on the scale of probability that it was what happened or what most likely happened.The Dispatches documentary has always been a great help to me https://youtu.be/InJLmyakzeE
I did say the experts in dispatch programme were hindered as they will never be shown discussing the parental involvement theory. They start the programme saying they have 3 theories. None of which include the last people seen with Madeleiene - family and friends. So they are not looking at all possibilities. It's quite obvious from the transcript of the programme that they are avoiding the parental involvement theory, probably due to legalities.
"DB: We just don't know what has happened because we haven't got the hard physical evidence. I think we can realise that the two ends of the spectrum are now vanishingly small. That she wandered off by herself and is alive and well somewhere, or that some organised gang took her. It's a strange place for them to take a child from. But we don't know whether she met some harm within the immediate family circle either accidentally or deliberate or whether somebody in the area did break in through either the child's bedroom window or the sliding doors and took her. It would be a really bizarre and strange crime if that took place but bizarre and strange crimes do happen.
DC: We know from very many studies that, if the family's not involved in the disappearance of a child, then it's very likely indeed that it's somebody relatively local. Somebody who's seen the child before, who knows the local situation, who knows the possibilities for getting in and getting out; away with a child. So, to my mind, that's the most likely possibility."
(Bolded bits are my emphasis)
They are only discussing 'If the family's not involved', although they say they don't know whether she did meet with harm within the family circle. Unfortunately most cases where a young child is missing, do feature parental involvement. Neither do the experts on 'dispatches' look at how the different theories fit in with the given timeline. Again because they seem to be limited on what they can and can't question by the legalities. So you have a programme looking at HOW certain theories may have planned out and NOT the probability of them occurring.
I believe all theories should be looked at and I hope that's what Scotland Yard have been doing in a full and systematic manner.
Before Madeleine vanished, several people reported a man watching 5A.
I think that she probably travelled the first part of her journey by boat and the second part by van ... and I think that she went up to the Porto area .... and that is where the first missing, thought to have been abducted, children vanished from: Starting with Jorge Sepulveda way back in 1991. Porto, where in, or about, 1999 and after 5 abductions, a man was picked up according to a report that I read. He was the son of an elite and he was given a talking to and released.
Jeez, he was released .... just like that ! But, hey, he was the son of an elite!
That info has vanished long ago from the internet, but a poster called Catkins confirmed that she had seen a similar sort of report as well.
After the police intervention, there were no more mainland Portugal abductions of pre-pubescent children until girls started going missing in the Algarve region. Then Joana Cipriano, Carolina Santos and finally Madeleine, all in the space of less than 3 years and all within about 20 miles of each other
My man has connections in both the Porto and the Algarve region and would have spent time in each
I advise installing a decent anti-virus software like Norton & when you get an email you are unsure about, right-click on it instead of opening & go to "view message source". That way you can check the sender's full addy & pathway to gauge if it is authentic. Hugs to you, too.
Thanks misty, but I already have Norton and it appears to make no difference! Am daily running virus cleaners such as CCleaner and they find and delete loads of stuff. [Virus might not be the correct word]. I am no techno when it comes to computers and dont even know the correct words to express myself.
Will try the right clicking and going to * view message source*... Thanks
Joana Cipriano was murdered by her uncle and the alleged attempted abduction of Carolina Santos was a questionable event since it was broad daylight and she never left the street. So in reality there are no confirmed abductions of very young children in this region of Portugal.
Joana Cipriano was murdered by her uncle and the alleged attempted abduction of Carolina Santos was a questionable event since it was broad daylight and she never left the street. So in reality there are no confirmed abductions of very young children in this region of Portugal.Yep, she never left the street BUT was walking hand in hand with a man who told her that he was taking her to play with some other children. She was a pretty 3 year old. When Carolina was called back, he loosed her hand and vanished around the corner
Yep, she never left the street BUT was walking hand in hand with a man who told her that he was taking her to play with some other children. She was a pretty 3 year old. When Carolina was called back, he loosed her hand and vanished around the corner
Oh, and I forgot to add that according to reports, he had walked her about 300 metres when her parents spotted her being walked off
So that is not an attempted abduction then John? Would that have been OK had a man walked one of your boys off?
Lucky to be able to see her at 300 metres...He had walked 300 meters, doesn't mean they saw them at 300 meters, if they called out obviously they were closer at the time of the sighting. IMO.
He had walked 300 meters, doesn't mean they saw them at 300 meters, if they called out obviously they were closer at the time of the sighting. IMO.
Blue-eyed blonde Carolina Santos, three, was snatched by a Moroccan-looking man four months before Maddie vanished. Carolina’s parents Abel and Lina were working in their cafe at Fonte Louzeiros when Carolina vanished last Christmas Day. They spotted her with the stranger 300 yards away. When they caught up he fled. Lina said: “If we hadn’t come out at that moment I don’t know what would have happenedAre these your words or a news report - cite please.
Lucky to be able to see her at 300 metres...
Are these your words or a news report - cite please.From a Google search I'd say it comes from https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/madeleine-carolina-santos/
Blue-eyed blonde Carolina Santos, three, was snatched by a Moroccan-looking man four months before Maddie vanished. Carolina’s parents Abel and Lina were working in their cafe at Fonte Louzeiros when Carolina vanished last Christmas Day. They spotted her with the stranger 300 yards away. When they caught up he fled. Lina said: “If we hadn’t come out at that moment I don’t know what would have happened
Dropped pin300 yards was reported, is that accurate or tabloid fancy?
near R. de Fonte Louseiros, Alcantarilha, Portugal
https://goo.gl/maps/JAt6nbeXoEu
300 yards was reported, is that accurate or tabloid fancy?
From a Google search I'd say it comes from https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/madeleine-carolina-santos/
Somebodies fantasy.Whose? You still haven't given a cite.
Well I, for one do not believe in the validity of the court rulings on Leonor and Joao Cipriano. It is based upon the word and thoughts of two men who are both criminals. both of whom have been proven to be liars and both have made money on th backs of two missing children, by writing books based upon their, imo, crazy thoughts.
Then there is the small thing of having beaten Leonor half to blindness, with horrific bruising all over her face and body ... but according to Amaral, who is a perjurer, the torture was done after Leonor had confessed.
OK so what other reason was there for it?
Just a few of the crazy thoughts, with no proof attached to them by Amaral:
1. Joana came home to find her Mum and Uncle "at it", so she had to be murdered. No proof or pointers even. UNBELIEVABLE !
2. Joanas body was cut up and stuffed in a freezer, which was too small for it
3. The body pieces were then taken to the piggery and fed to the pigs
ALL UNBELIEVABLE
4. The accusation by Amaral that Leonor must have done it because she was wearing
black on a TV show about the case. We were shown photos of her upper body to prove it. Such nonsense.
Further to that when we finally saw the video of the show, she was wearing bright red trousers with the black top. IMO, that is fraudulent at worst and negligent at best ... and such a silly accusation anyway
and on the Madeleine case:
1. Madeleines body was kept in a freezer (Another Freezer ... Gee Whizz!)
2. The parents were swingers as were all the Tapas group .... nothing to indicate it, just a bland rumour, blackening the parents and groups names (to make them more vulnerable? by influencing the publics perception of them?)
There are lots of other things, but soz, i was up too late last night and my mind is still half asleep.
John, The Joana Cipriano case is so weak that it is amazing that it found its way through Court. It should have been thrown out before it even reached The Courts, but perhaps Leonor is safest in Prison. With a brave woman like Leonor (name means lioness?) she might well be finished off if when she finally comes out, IMO, especially if she speaks her mind and reveals things about her treatment and the irregularities of the case and causes a furore.
Life (of the poorer citizens) seems cheap in Portugal.
Yep, she never left the street BUT was walking hand in hand with a man who told her that he was taking her to play with some other children. She was a pretty 3 year old. When Carolina was called back, he loosed her hand and vanished around the corner
Oh, and I forgot to add that according to reports, he had walked her about 300 metres when her parents spotted her being walked off
So that is not an attempted abduction then John? Would that have been OK had a man walked one of your boys off?
Whose? You still haven't given a cite.
The 300 yards was from the Sun according to SiL, though it doesn't mention her being taken 300 yards, just seen at 300 yards.If you see someone 300 yards away and they are walking away from you, it will take a lot of distance to catch up with them.
If you see someone 300 yards away and they are walking away from you, it will take a lot of distance to catch up with them.
Somebodies fantasy.Is it a fantasy tho' ?
That would depend on the walking speed differential.You may never catch up with them at all.Exactly that is why I think the telling of the incident is rather faulty IMO.
From VS quoted figures the differential will range from 0mps to ca 0.7mps. I'll leave others to do the mechancical bit.
Or if you prefer the Yank version "you do the math"
Is it a fantasy tho' ?However, with further reseach, I find that the human voice is only intelligiible up to 180 metres away. As a child, Carolina is likely to have extremely good hearing, but IMO and according to recognised research, she could not have heard her parents shouting from the cafe.
I checked on G Earth. There is a straight lane/ road going roughly south from the Cafe Cabrita and the first bend comes at about 300 metres. Several reports say that he vanished around the bend and the way that it was put sounded to me as tho the bend was very close by.
I think that the 300 metres is pretty near correct
Sil seems to have researched the story very thoroughly, well worth a read.
SIL missed one very important point IMO.
https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/madeleine-carolina-santos/
*snipped*
The odd thing about these three variations is that they all date to 25 May 2007, so what was going on?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
25th May was the day PJ made public a few details of the Tanner sighting. Were the stories about Carolina an attempt to distract from Madeleine with reports of a kidnap attempt on one of their own citizens or, alternatively, a means of subtly ridiculing the alleged abduction of an English child?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm
*snipped*
Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007
Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".
The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.
Is it a fantasy tho' ?
I checked on G Earth. There is a straight lane/ road going roughly south from the Cafe Cabrita and the first bend comes at about 300 metres. Several reports say that he vanished around the bend and the way that it was put sounded to me as tho the bend was very close by.
I think that the 300 metres is pretty near correct
So where does the Cafe Cabrita come into it?
Yet another mother had a weird experience when her daughter was removed from inside a children's supervised play area and found in the company of a woman some distance away.
The police, although "kind and sympathetic" were unable to do anything to assist because the child 'had not been physically harmed and was safely returned'. http://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-27/mother-suing-holiday-firm-over-abduction/ and the hotel used by the holiday company "denied that an abduction took place and maintained that the hotel's children's club was safe and secure" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44625857 despite a little girl being removed from it.
There seems to be a vested interest in denial in tourist areas when something untoward happens which might affect the industry adversely.
Sadie's theory outlines instances which have been played down as irrelevancies and which may have influenced the conduct of Madeleine's case.
This ranges from unsolved disappearances of children in Portugal not just from the Algarve but throughout. It includes the death of Jacinta Reeves who the police said had committed suicide by battering herself repeatedly on the head with a hatchet. It includes the disappearance of Joana Cipriano whose mother is still in jail serving time for her murder, and the similarities between Joana's case and Madeleine's.
There is much more than that simply because Sadie has spent many years researching it all and it is serious stuff in many instances. Rather than the usual 'put downs' it would be more interesting to discuss Sadie's theory with more of an open mind because in my opinion that is what Sadie used when outlining her thoughts.
However at the very least it is my opinion that much of what she says is being taken very seriously indeed ... or else why the concerted effort at debunking it?
"Sadie's theory outlines instances which have been played down as irrelevancies and which may have influenced the conduct of Madeleine's case." No evidence of such, just a wee story made up.
"It includes the disappearance of Joana Cipriano whose mother is still in jail serving time for her murder, " She was jailed after a court case- she had legal representation- Do you have evidence of her 'innocence' I suggest you pass it on -save her lingering away.
"and the similarities between Joana's case and Madeleine's." what similarities? they both disappeared in Portugal? unless you know more. it has been suggested by residents and shop keepers alike that Joana's mother was... well.. I will let others look it up so this doesn't get swiped.
However at the very least it is my opinion that much of what she says is being taken very seriously indeed ... or else why the concerted effort at debunking it?
I would suggest the theory is NOT being taken seriously at all. No one is debunking- just pulling it apart to see if it works- It doesn't! I personally find it hilarious! ^*&&
At risk of repeating myself - "it is my opinion that much of what she says is being taken very seriously indeed ... or else why the concerted effort at debunking it?"
But your opinion is just that,- not to be taken seriously -by independent thinkers.
All theories are looked at in detail to see if it is possible. I don't agree with Amarals theory, but it is more plausible than Sadies.
Sadie need to provide EVIDENCE to back up her theory. and 'not telling' isn't evidence.
However, for entertainment value I give it 9/10.
I recommend reading Sil's page on the story.
At risk of repeating myself - "it is my opinion that much of what she says is being taken very seriously indeed ... or else why the concerted effort at debunking it?"
So what leads you to believe that much of what Sadie says is being taken seriously ?
Apparently it's a sign that you're right if other people disagree with you. Unless, of course, you're Operation Grange debunking Jane Tanner's sighting. @)(++(*
In my opinion Operation Grange actually enhanced Jane Tanner's evidence and I believe Sadie's theory subscribes to that as well as considering that the neglect by the PJ of the Smith sighting which she has researched at great length was a great pity and could have been detrimental to the case.Did Sadie know about that?
However I have never seen her mentioning the measuring at the McCann apartment carried out by the British police sometime in May.
Snip
Meanwhile, at the end of the afternoon, four British police officers were standing by the apartment from which Maddie disappeared to make measurements, with proper authorization from the PJ. https://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/caso-maddie/noticias/interior/casal-mccann-da-hoje-primeira-entrevista-so-para-tv-978016.html
Wonder what that was about?
Did Sadie know about that?
I don't recall her ever mentioning it and it is the first time I have seen mention of any such operation being carried out by the British police in Portugal.
So what leads you to believe that much of what Sadie says is being taken seriously ?It might have been given a serious look at when she presented it.
It might have been given a serious look at when she presented it.