Sadie's theory.

[slartibartfast]

Off topic but particularly relevant to this topic.

If members wish to report posts in particular topics, it would be better that they were actually contributing to the topic.

[G-Unit]

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.

No he didn't.

[blonk]

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?

[Carana]

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?

Perhaps you'd like to contribute to yet another tumbleweed thread:

What evidence would one expect to find in an ABDUCTION?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5306.0

[ShiningInLuz]

It seems to be getting a bit heated.  May I suggest a bit of cooling off may help progress.

I said I would do the donkey work, so here is donkey work part 1.

http://www.dn.pt/dossiers/sociedade/criancas-desaparecidas/noticias/interior/jorge-sepulveda-desapareceu-ha-17-anos-1048551.html

22 Nov 2008  Diario de Noticias  {Not attributed to any named author.}

"Jorge Sepúlveda desapareceu há 17 anos

Jorge Sepúlveda tinha 14 anos quando desapareceu da sua aldeia, em Massarelos. Foi em 1991 e é o caso mais antigo que consta da base de dados da Polícia Judiciária sobre menores desaparecidos. Há nomes que entram e saem, mas há os que por lá permanecem sem que seja encontrada qualquer explicação para o seu desaparecimento.

A maioria dos rostos de menores são do sexo masculino, como o Rui Pedro, o Rui Pereira ou o José Gomes Teles. Suspeita-se que poderão ter sido levados por redes de pedofilia. Suspeita-se.

Mas uma mulher recusa-se a deixar cair o desaparecimento do seu filho no esquecimento. É Filomena Teixeira, a mãe de Rui Pedro que o viu pela última vez há dez anos. Tinha ele 11 anos, quando desapareceu de Lousada. Uma década de buscas que deram origem �  Associação de Portuguesa de Crianças Desaparecidas (APCD), criada há um ano, e a uma página na Internet, com o desenho de um rosto que se pensar ser o do filho na actualidade. 

A lista da PJ vai mantendo uma média entre nove e 11 casos, menos dos que investiga em cada semana, mas a grande maioria são situações que não demoram mais de cinco dias a resolver. Em regra, trata-se de raparigas entre os 14 e 17 anos e decidiram fugiram de casa.

Os outros, os que permanecem, podem ter sido apanhados em redes de predadores sexuais ou de tráfico de órgãos. São as explicação mais plausíveis dadas por técnicos e autoridades policiais. Seja em Portugal ou no estrangeiro. A organização das Nações Unidas para a infância, UNCEF, estima que 1,2 milhões e crianças são anualmente vítimas de tráfico humano.

O desenvolvimento da Internet aproximou as pessoas, mas nem sempre pelos melhores motivos. Aumentam os crimes sexuais de aliciamento e pornografia através da Net, o que levou os instituições internacionais, nomeadamente a Comissão Europeia, a tomar medidas contra a proliferação de mensagens electrónicas que fomentem tais crimes."

I will do more donkey work when I get the time, and translate this into English.  I want to check some of the facts reported, and I assume I am looking mainly for Portuguese articles.

Some key facts at this point in time appear to be as follows.

The article appeared in Nov 2008.  The article appeared in Diario de Noticias.  The article was not sufficiently important for the author to get attribution.

Jorge Sepulvada disappeared in 1991 as Sadie reported.

He was 14 when he disappeared.  From Massarelos.

It is the oldest case in the PJ database.  {I have no idea when the PJ database started, so I have no idea if this is accurate, or significant.}

The report chucks in paedophile rings.

1 piece of donkey work down.  Much more donkey work to come.

[Admin]

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 am happy to allow this thread as long as Sadie is in agreement. 

[Angelo222]

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.

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.

[sadie]

According to this site: http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5&year=2007

...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?
         

   

Good morning Blonk.  I am short of time but quickly:

First of all , in "sadies Theory", I dont catagorically SAY anything much as fact.  I merely have found a possible solution to the way the abduction could have been very smoothly achieved.   A solution which also explained the gap in time between Janes sighting of Tannerman and The Smiths sighting of Smithman.  I think that it is highly likiely that Tannerman and Smithman are the same man, but I dont KNOW that.

Next, from memory your time of sunset being 8.22pm at Faro is out I think.  I am not going to search for the official details, they have been  posted on here twice by me, but I think that it was only just going dark when Gerry returned to the apartment for his check at 9.00-9.05 ish.  I am very happy to be proved wrong if I am remembering incorrectly.



Now, your thoughts:

1. A bloke was eyeing up Apartment G5A having already decided to abduct Madeleine. 
I believe that Madeleine was selected and there is plenty of evidence that the apartment was being watched.  I have ideas about why she was selected and they include the fact that she was a pretty, lively and intelligent little girl ... and quite possibly her ethnicity and bloodline had a major part in that.  I will not be drawn farther on this altho I have presented some of my ideas previously in this forum if you care to look.

2. He had an accomplice waiting in a car in the car parking area nearest to G5A . 
No, the vehicle was parked in the little car park opposite reception IMO ... and probably as close to the gate at the bottom of the garden to block 6, flat across the road from 5A, as was possible.  I believe that 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 thru the building.

3. He didn't abduct Madeleine after seeing Gerry and Kate leave their apartment at about 8.30pm. 
I think it happened immediately Gerry left at about 9.15 or so.  That is the most sensible time to do it.  The check had just been made and no-one was likely to check for another half hour.   It also gave the perp the longest period to get away before discovery.   
That time also matches the time that Jane saw Tannerman with ?Madeleine.   
Matt thinking that the bedroom seemed a bit light from the ouitside, at about 9.35ish, also adds weight to the time of abduction being just after Gerry left.

4. His plan was slightly affected after seeing Gerry and Jes Wilkins talking in the lane. 
Gerry and Jez were talking actually on the edge of the kerb and in the road, adjacent to end of the lane/alleyway/path at the rear of block 5 apartments.  The watcher, director/getaway driver had expected to drive up the road in a northerly direction to pick up Tannerman from the front of 5A.   He drove out to immediately be 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 left in a total quandary

5. He had an entry key card 
Not a key card.  I am surprised that you weren't aware that the front door needed a key to open it.  We have thoroughly discussed getting a key and have found several methods that he might have got hold of one.   Btw, there had been burglaries in OC apartments before using keys or some means of entry via the front door without damaging it

6. He decided to swiftly 'nip in' (actual quote by Sadie) and abduct Madeleine 
IMO, the decision was made before hand as to the approximate  time (immediately after a check from the parent or friend makes best sense) and method of entry.  I am old and partially disabled but I 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 lifter from that 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 lifter.

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 
Yep, for a number of reasons.  Some below:

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 thru 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 tho Madeleine went out of the window, under her own violition.  Red Herring as you suggested.
vii) ... and to try to ensure that the front door wasn't considered during the golden hour or so
And there were other possible reasons but I am too tired to work them out atm.

8. He quickly took Madeleine to the waiting car. 
You haven't bothered to read what I said Blonk.  IMO the getaway car parked was in the car park opposite the Tapas reception and behind the gate to block 6 flats that had balconies overlooking 5A.  It seems that the idea was that the watcher/getaway driver was to drive up to the entrance to 5A car park, pick up and drive off complete with Madeleine and Tannerman. 

However it seems likely that Tannerman worried sick that he was carrying a stolen child in his arms, 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/driver had driven off in fear.  Leaving him on his own carrying a stolen child

.

9. The two of them drover off with Madeleine. 
Where did you get that from Blonk?  You certianly didn't bother to read what I suggested in my theory


If I have understood this correctly, I would like to ask Sadie these questions:
cont:

[sadie]

Good Evening Blonk

  Part 2

A. 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)?
There is no forensic or circumstantial evidence that Madeleine died.  SY have said that the parents are not suispects IIRC ... nor are the Tapas group


B. If so, what is it?i)   

i)  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.

ii)  The images of a little girl on a wo/mans back in the hemp groowing region of the Rif Mountains, Morocco are NOT of Bushra BENita/ BENissa (Jewish name).  I have a vety keen eye for bone structuire and shape.  I believe the little girl was Madeleine Mccann.  Furthermore the little girl in the orange top in the same photo by Ms Torres was very like Joana Cipriano.    The little girl being carried is almost certainly Madeleine

BTW, did you know that Mr BENnett  [ irrelevant deleted ]

iii)   The images of a little girl walking around a bank in Molenbeek St John is also a dead ringer of 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 suspects 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, dont you think?




C. For what possible reason did the abductor lift the windows and shutters?
See above.  I have listed them when you asked before in this very post.


D.   Was 'Tannerman' really 'Crecheman'?
IMO Chrechman was not Tannerman, but SY seem to think otherwise


E. If the abductor and his driver drove off with Madeleine, does this make the 'Smithman' sighting, at best, totally irrelevant?
If you had bothered to read my theory, you would know that the driver never picked up the abductor.  The driver abandoned Tannerman when he saw JT observe Tannerman carrying Madeleine


All the above is just about a theory.  A theory that could work very well, but I acknowledge that it may not all be correct.  Sensible questions are welcome to progress it. 



Finally, we need a central repository of FACTS on this forum with things like official meteorogical reports etc. that we can easily refer to.   Can that be arranged please John?

[stephen25000]

The little girl is not Madeleine, that has been refuted some time ago.

As to the rest, guests reading this forum who are interested in this case can check out facts for themselves.

[ferryman]

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.

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.

[blonk]

SADIE'S THEORY RE-STATED IN 14 POINTS

@ 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


       

[G-Unit]

So three people were involved? One was a watcher on the top (?) balcony who could see the north area of Block 5 and the side gate? In that case he or she could warn the one outside the window if someone entered the side gate or if someone passed the gate and headed up towards the main entrance. A phone must have been used because I doubt if the one outside the window could see the balcony with those tall trees blowing about. Also, if the one outside the window was interacting with the one inside that's where his attention would have been, he could easily have missed any other signal. I wonder where the carrier and the lifter waited for the signal to begin? I believe it wasn't that dark at the time.

[sadie]

The little girl is not Madeleine, that has been refuted some time ago.

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 ?

[slartibartfast]

you DONT KNOW thta stephen.

why are you adverse to my putting Blonk on the right track in what i said ?

The father of the little girl in Belgium came forward to identify his daughter and her Morrocan nanny.