Sadie's theory.

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

No problem. Fortunately I won't see your mocking and derision because I'll have you on ignore 

[mercury]

This whole theory and the wherewithalls rests on it being some diamond heist or very rich persons kid held to ransom not a normal average persons sprog left on their own while they went out

[sadie]

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

Srephen , my dear, this isn't evidence against a man, altho it could lead to the man possibly.  This theory is merely proof that an abduction could have taken place and an indication that probably the whole thing was planned and executed withh high precision.   But despite the carefull planning things went wrong when the pick up car failed to arrive forcing Tannerman to go walk abouts.  See Sadies theory for an explanation of why this probably happened.

My Pointers are multiple and you will never hear them on here, but I do know pretty well that SY after a reluctant start have taken notice of at least some of my pointers.  Quite a few it seems, judging by movements they have made in the case.  My theory is bizarre, it sounds very Dan Brown.  I am aware of that, but SY listened because it all fitted together like a jigsaw and pointed to one man using facts.

Whether the pointers are sufficient for a charge on the Madeleine Case, I am not sure.  I am not a police Officer.

[sadie]

Thank you, Sadie.
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.

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?


View from the balcony (middle or upper, I haven't yet had time to work that out.) through the gap in the trees of the front of 5A  -  where the abductor stood outside the window and outside the front door recess.


Thanks to Johns photo, I am gobsmacked by just how easy it was for a watcher on the balcony to oversee everything that went on in front of Madeleines window and in front of the porch to the front door.  That + the fag ends found on the balcony the following morning, help to confirm to me  that my theory is pretty damned well right.

But despite that I know i could be wrong.


However the theory proves that it was possible to abduct Madeleine in the time available and gives a possibly valid reason for the delay between the Tannerman sighting and The Smithman sighting.

[mercury]

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.

Point is the disappearance if a child ....if you think there is a link between THAT and the long bead presented, do explore it

[sadie]

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

I do have other theories but this is about "sadies theory" as it was posted.

OK ?

[mercury]

Oh sadie found your architecture thread which you thought was "mysteriously wiped" or at least a spin off,cheers


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2440.0

[sadie]

This thread is about your theory in its entirety.

No it is not. 

It is about "Sadies theory".  A thread that I wrote about 3 or 4 years ago before your time on here.

If you wish to examine my other theories then when this thread has died the death, we can look at them one at a time

[sadie]

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.

I dont think that there was any additional lighting cios there are no other shadows that I can see.

[sadie]

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

Soz

[sadie]

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!!

   Good post.

Surely PFinder can see the flaws inn her theory and posts?   They have been explained to her many times.

[sadie]

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.

Try not to make it up PFinder.   As far as we know, IIRC, the Smiths sighting was the same time as the alarm was being raised.

Please correct me if my memory is letting me down.

[mercury]

  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

[slartibartfast]

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.