Sadie's theory.

[Angelo222]

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 agree.

[Mr Gray]

That's just silly davel.  Maddie being missing could mean a host of things.

yes..maddie missing could mean a host of things...and is CONSISTENT with a host of things...including abduction

[Angelo222]

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

What evidence?

[Angelo222]

yes..maddie missing could mean a host of things...and is CONSISTENT with a host of things...including abduction

I agree but nothing SPECIFIC to abduction.

[slartibartfast]

What evidence?

It will be either Madeleine is missing or Redwood says.

[Mr Gray]

What evidence?

maddie is missing...that is evidence....her missing is consistent with abduction..as you have agreed

[slartibartfast]

maddie is missing...that is evidence....her missing is consistent with abduction..as you have agreed

Looks like I was right.

[Mr Gray]

No it is commenting on your debating technique which is designed to prevent counter arguments.

what you are saying is your opinion and imo...totally untrue...could you not state opinion as a fact

[ferryman]

It will be either Madeleine is missing or Redwood says.

What is the opinion of Redwood, by comparison of the opinion of an acknowledged expert like Slarti? .....

[Angelo222]

maddie is missing...that is evidence....her missing is consistent with abduction..as you have agreed

With respect davel, that is nonsense.

[Angelo222]

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.

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.

[Angelo222]

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.
* No intruder fingerprints identified on the window.
* An extremely small window of opportunity.
* Lots of people wandering around yet nobody saw anything.

[Mr Gray]

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.

No evidence specific to abduction but certainly evidence consistent with abduction which was the word you used in your post
It is not a surprise that there is no evidence specific to abduction as there rarely is in abduction cases
Look at Ben Needham.. No evidence specific to abduction
What specific evidence would you expect

[ShiningInLuz]

I think Sadie's theory is as good as any and better than some.

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.

[Brietta]

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.

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 ...

• 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

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.