Sadie's theory.

[stephen25000]

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.

Just reminded d me Sadie where the evidence is to take an 'abductor' to court, including the forensics to show such an event occurred.

[sadie]

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.

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%

[sadie]

How would they know she's dead?

Are you kidding?

[stephen25000]

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%

Well Sadie, you have your stories, other people have reality, and are still waiting for solid evidence of abduction.

Not beliefs.

[Brietta]

Just reminded d me Sadie where the evidence is to take an 'abductor' to court, including the forensics to show such an event occurred.

No doubt the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard are putting a considerable amount of effort into doing just that ... as you know the Amaral investigation botched most of the forensics from the time ... we have all seen the high standards employed when the shutter was dusted for fingerprints.
We know that cigarette butts were ignored and swept away from the balcony overlooking the crime scene.

Allow me to remind you ... the PJ and SY ... are looking for an abductor and that is the reality in 2016.

[sadie]

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.

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.

As for the different directions.

Tannerman was walking towards a rendezvous with the getaway vehicle and in an emergency situatioon kept on walking.  Smithman, who could easily be Tannerman was purposely striding it out to what seems was a definite destination.  Someone had told poor lost Tannerman where to go.  I think that the accomplice at the Staff quarters priobably phoned around for him and relayed instructions.  It all fits, but I know that I could be wrong.

Can you come up with a better solution?

[sadie]

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

[sadie]

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?

[sadie]

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.

[stephen25000]

I haven't read anything of substance that you have said against sadies theory.  Perhaps you are unable to find anything wrong with it?

Why are you typing in the 3 rd person ?

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

[sadie]

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.

I believe as a boy he was subjected to the erastes/eromenos treatment by someone that he thought of as almost God.  That might well have caused mental problems but I dont know for sure if it did.

[slartibartfast]

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%

This thread is about Sadie's theory in its entirety. You can't pick and choose which bits get discussed.

[sadie]

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 fault

I agree.  Too much propaganda put about.  Disinformation against the Mccanns was rife from the PJ and PT media especially

[Alfred R Jones]

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?