Sadie's theory.

[sadie]

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?

Blonks precis, whilst a good attempt, was quite wrong on several points.  I have corrected the errors, but I cannot piont you to the correrted precis cos i am battling to catch up with the thread and haven't got the time atm.  Going out tonight as well, so i will drop further behind.   Jeez !

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

[sadie]

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

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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. &%+((£

[pathfinder73]

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

And they say Sadie's theory is bonkers!!

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

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.

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.

[pathfinder73]

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.

[G-Unit]

As an abduction is a possibility I have no problem with a theory suggesting how it could have been accomplished.

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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. 

[pathfinder73]

blah blah blah.  You're theory is utterly ludicrous, no matter how many caveats and excuses you make for it.

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

As an abduction is a possibility I have no problem with a theory suggesting how it could have been accomplished.

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.

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.