The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Page 3 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by jmac on 22.04.12 1:33

Will the BBC allow comments about this programme I wonder? It has been advertised in advance and there are many views. If we have a democracy all views will be represented, of course. If we do not have a democracy there will be a shut down of views, one way or the other.

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 22.04.12 2:59

@gypsypeg wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:D.C.I. Redwood has been leading this review for nigh on one year.

He had an initial budget of I think £3 million or so, which IIRC he has recently asked to be increased.

He has a team of 37 officers working for him (almost as many as Clarence Mitchell had working for him when he was head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit).

He will no doubt be able to inform the British viewing public about his officers' visits to Spain (Barcelona) and Portugal (several there I believe).

This massive and expensive exercise must be achieving something.

May be we will get a new susepct/person of interest/person that Scotland Yard wish to eliminate from their enquiries.

Or may be one of the existing 18 male and 2 female suspects/persons of interest who has already been identified by the McCann Team will be the one we really need to find.

I found the photograph late last year of the Scotland Yard officers marching away from the offices of Metodo 3 in Barcelona fascinating.

Who arranged that photo call I wonder, and why? Because it wasn't just taken on a mobile 'phone by someone who happened to be there at the time.

Did Metodo 3 arrange for that photo to be taken - to make Metodo 3 look big and important?

Or did Scotland Yard arrange it (more likely IMO) to produce photos in the British press to show that they really were 'on the case' and doing something?

They would have done well if, whilst they were in Barcelona, they visited Antonio Giminez Raso in Barcelona jail, where he is now serving an 18-year prison term for his part in a theft of £25 million from a boat in Barcelona harbour and corruption in a public office.

There they could have asked him so much.

They could have quizzed him about his former career as the corrupt Head of Anti-Drugs and Trafficking for the Catalonia Police, prior to his sudden departure at the end of 2004.

They could have asked him about how he managed to join Metodo 3 immediately afterwards. What was it that Metodo 3 saw in him, I wonder?

Then they could have gone into detail about how he became the lead investigator for Metodo 3 in the Madeleine McCann case.

They could have followed that up by asking what he knows about what due diligence tests they did on him and Metodo 3 when Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team handed Metodo 3 a lucrative 250 grand contract. What did Kennedy and the McCann Team see in the qualities of the likes of Francisco Marco and Antonio Gimimez Raso?

Redwood's men could have asked Raso how he developed various stories in Morocco, alongside Brian Kennedy.

Then again they could have probed him about the surrounding circumstances of his visit to Portimao Police Station, together with Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 boss Francisco-Maddie-will-be-home-by-Christmas-Marco on 13 November 2007, the same day as it happens when Robert Murat's aunt and uncle, the Eveleighs, invited Robert and his Mum, Robert's lawyer, Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst to dinner. What a high powered tete-a-tete that must have been!

Another fascinating line of enquiry for Redwood's men would have been to ask Antonio Giminez Raso what on earth he was doing talking to Marcos Aragao Correia, the strange lawyer from Madeira, at the Arade Dam, on 10 December 2007, just before Correia pretended to be a 'Good Samaritan' leading a search for Madeleine's bones in that same dam just 7 weeks later.

Based, he said, on underworld info that Madeleine had been abducted, raped, killed and thrown into a murky lake.

Antonio Giminez Raso would know Correia very well, and could perhaps explain why Correia lied about that, later changing his story to: "I became interested in the Madeleine McCann case because on the night of my first-ever Spritualist Church meeting on Madeira, I had a vision of a huge man strangling a young blonde girl".

Yes, undoubtedly Antonio Giminez Raso could yield up much very useful information about the McCann Team's investigative strategy and methods.

I feel absolutely sure that Redwood's men must by now have interviewed him a number of times and taken statements from him.

If so, they would no doubt be a fascinating read.

If Redwood hasn't taken this action, he might well have to answer for his decision one day.

All his decisions, of commission and also of omission, must be recorded in his Policy Folder.

Tony, I hope DCI Redwood has read that with care and has noted each and every point you made, especially regarding the corruption of police and ex-police officers in Iberian Police forces. That is positively disgusting.

Are you sure that Marcos Aragao Correia was "pretending to be a good samaritan"? You know how litigious these people can be. Its wise to be careful in what you say.

Well, he volunteered didn't he? to dredge the lake I mean.
So he must have been a good samaritan. Otherwise who hired and paid him for that project? Team Mccanns?

If it isn't team mccanns, then it's not wrong state to say he was pretending to be a good samaritan.

If he was hired by team mccanns, then by that action they concede that Maddie may be dead, so how can they continue to bleat "there's no evidence to show she has come to any harm"?

The mccanns cant have it both way.
Either they believe there is a possibility she is dead or she isn't.
Can't play it to suit their convenient that when they want people to continue to boost up their fund because they claim they need the money for the search, then on the other hand use the Fund to pay some questionable characters to dredge up a lake based on a hearsay.

There's only one way to find out whether Marcos Correia was hired or paid and by whom? Andy Redwood only has to ask Raso about it.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by gypsypeg on 22.04.12 3:40

@aiyoyo wrote:
@gypsypeg wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:D.C.I. Redwood has been leading this review for nigh on one year.

He had an initial budget of I think £3 million or so, which IIRC he has recently asked to be increased.

He has a team of 37 officers working for him (almost as many as Clarence Mitchell had working for him when he was head of Tony Blair's Media Monitoring Unit).

He will no doubt be able to inform the British viewing public about his officers' visits to Spain (Barcelona) and Portugal (several there I believe).

This massive and expensive exercise must be achieving something.

May be we will get a new susepct/person of interest/person that Scotland Yard wish to eliminate from their enquiries.

Or may be one of the existing 18 male and 2 female suspects/persons of interest who has already been identified by the McCann Team will be the one we really need to find.

I found the photograph late last year of the Scotland Yard officers marching away from the offices of Metodo 3 in Barcelona fascinating.

Who arranged that photo call I wonder, and why? Because it wasn't just taken on a mobile 'phone by someone who happened to be there at the time.

Did Metodo 3 arrange for that photo to be taken - to make Metodo 3 look big and important?

Or did Scotland Yard arrange it (more likely IMO) to produce photos in the British press to show that they really were 'on the case' and doing something?

They would have done well if, whilst they were in Barcelona, they visited Antonio Giminez Raso in Barcelona jail, where he is now serving an 18-year prison term for his part in a theft of £25 million from a boat in Barcelona harbour and corruption in a public office.

There they could have asked him so much.

They could have quizzed him about his former career as the corrupt Head of Anti-Drugs and Trafficking for the Catalonia Police, prior to his sudden departure at the end of 2004.

They could have asked him about how he managed to join Metodo 3 immediately afterwards. What was it that Metodo 3 saw in him, I wonder?

Then they could have gone into detail about how he became the lead investigator for Metodo 3 in the Madeleine McCann case.

They could have followed that up by asking what he knows about what due diligence tests they did on him and Metodo 3 when Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team handed Metodo 3 a lucrative 250 grand contract. What did Kennedy and the McCann Team see in the qualities of the likes of Francisco Marco and Antonio Gimimez Raso?

Redwood's men could have asked Raso how he developed various stories in Morocco, alongside Brian Kennedy.

Then again they could have probed him about the surrounding circumstances of his visit to Portimao Police Station, together with Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 boss Francisco-Maddie-will-be-home-by-Christmas-Marco on 13 November 2007, the same day as it happens when Robert Murat's aunt and uncle, the Eveleighs, invited Robert and his Mum, Robert's lawyer, Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst to dinner. What a high powered tete-a-tete that must have been!

Another fascinating line of enquiry for Redwood's men would have been to ask Antonio Giminez Raso what on earth he was doing talking to Marcos Aragao Correia, the strange lawyer from Madeira, at the Arade Dam, on 10 December 2007, just before Correia pretended to be a 'Good Samaritan' leading a search for Madeleine's bones in that same dam just 7 weeks later.

Based, he said, on underworld info that Madeleine had been abducted, raped, killed and thrown into a murky lake.

Antonio Giminez Raso would know Correia very well, and could perhaps explain why Correia lied about that, later changing his story to: "I became interested in the Madeleine McCann case because on the night of my first-ever Spritualist Church meeting on Madeira, I had a vision of a huge man strangling a young blonde girl".

Yes, undoubtedly Antonio Giminez Raso could yield up much very useful information about the McCann Team's investigative strategy and methods.

I feel absolutely sure that Redwood's men must by now have interviewed him a number of times and taken statements from him.

If so, they would no doubt be a fascinating read.

If Redwood hasn't taken this action, he might well have to answer for his decision one day.

All his decisions, of commission and also of omission, must be recorded in his Policy Folder.

Tony, I hope DCI Redwood has read that with care and has noted each and every point you made, especially regarding the corruption of police and ex-police officers in Iberian Police forces. That is positively disgusting.

Are you sure that Marcos Aragao Correia was "pretending to be a good samaritan"? You know how litigious these people can be. Its wise to be careful in what you say.

Well, he volunteered didn't he? to dredge the lake I mean.
So he must have been a good samaritan. Otherwise who hired and paid him for that project? Team Mccanns?

If it isn't team mccanns, then it's not wrong state to say he was pretending to be a good samaritan.

If he was hired by team mccanns, then by that action they concede that Maddie may be dead, so how can they continue to bleat "there's no evidence to show she has come to any harm"?

The mccanns cant have it both way.
Either they believe there is a possibility she is dead or she isn't.
Can't play it to suit their convenient that when they want people to continue to boost up their fund because they claim they need the money for the search, then on the other hand use the Fund to pay some questionable characters to dredge up a lake based on a hearsay.

There's only one way to find out whether Marcos Correia was hired or paid and by whom? Andy Redwood only has to ask Raso about it.

I think you have missed the point of my question. Tony has said he was pretending.
You, yourself are clear that he volunteered. You say he must have been a good samaritan. Where is the pretence? What makes Tony so sure he was pretending?

gypsypeg

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 22.04.12 4:03

@Woofer wrote:
You`re totally right Tigger, in fact I haven`t heard one comment agreeing with SY doing this. At least Panorama have had the guts to now name Andy Redwood. We`ll have to wait and see if there`s any bias to what he says - maybe he has stayed impartial. But there`s obviously no way he can go on national TV and cast doubts about the McCann`s abduction story or I`m sure Carter Ruck would straight away be issuing a libel suit against the BBC. Equally he can`t really declare they had nothing to do with it - don`t see how he can do it without any bias. I tend to think it will be in the McCanns favour because the McCann`s would have had to approve it first, as they did with the previous Panorama programme.

Sorry Woofer I find it hard to understand your point.
Why made you think the MET Police need mccanns approval to do anything or say anything? Who are the mccanns?
Even the Queen cannot expect that!

Andy Redwood didn't get to become senior police detective by been inept ( at least I hope not).
Surely he knows where the lines are drawn.







aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by tigger on 22.04.12 6:32

IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by Pershing36 on 22.04.12 9:58

@tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.


Yes totally agree.

Really just cements in that what they want, they usually get.

Pershing36

Posts : 670
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by Ashwarya on 22.04.12 10:03

Scanning through the comments already posted about the Panorama programme, it looks as though Mitchell may have been dragged from his coffin late yesterday evening to put the case for the defence. Unfortunately he doesn't seem entirely sure what his pseudonym is! The tactic is to present a selection of carefully chosen snippets from the Attorney General's archiving report, whilst writing off all the other posters as libellous haters. He also claims to have read all the PJ files in the original Portuguese, unlike everyone else who is relying on inaccurate translations. It seems to have escaped his attention that the main witnesses were all interviewed in English (of a kind anyway .........errm, tut, well, you know, I mean, if I'm honest ......) Maybe he got woken up too suddenly. The buzz words are all there: ludicrous, preposterous, ridiculous, etc. Oh, and Amaral is a proven liar who has made huge sums of money from libelling the parents, not to mention covering up torture of some poor mother who had lost her daughter, and he made an obscene comment about the McCanns on BBC East Midlands today. It's all there.

Ashwarya

Posts : 141
Reputation : 17
Join date : 2011-04-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 22.04.12 10:26

@gypsypeg wrote:

I think you have missed the point of my question. Tony has said he was pretending.
You, yourself are clear that he volunteered. You say he must have been a good samaritan. Where is the pretence? What makes Tony so sure he was pretending?

I haven't missed your point.

I think what TB meant (I stand corrected) was he wasn't a samaritan but pretended to be one.
Since it is on record he said that M3 financed the lake dredge, meaning they paid him to do that job, and by extension he was paid by team mccanns.

Dont ask me to look up that record, I cant be arsed.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by Woofer on 22.04.12 10:49

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
You`re totally right Tigger, in fact I haven`t heard one comment agreeing with SY doing this. At least Panorama have had the guts to now name Andy Redwood. We`ll have to wait and see if there`s any bias to what he says - maybe he has stayed impartial. But there`s obviously no way he can go on national TV and cast doubts about the McCann`s abduction story or I`m sure Carter Ruck would straight away be issuing a libel suit against the BBC. Equally he can`t really declare they had nothing to do with it - don`t see how he can do it without any bias. I tend to think it will be in the McCanns favour because the McCann`s would have had to approve it first, as they did with the previous Panorama programme.

Sorry Woofer I find it hard to understand your point.
Why made you think the MET Police need mccanns approval to do anything or say anything? Who are the mccanns?
Even the Queen cannot expect that!

Andy Redwood didn't get to become senior police detective by been inept ( at least I hope not).
Surely he knows where the lines are drawn.







Hello Aiyoyo - I am assuming that, like the last time Panorama did their programme `The Mystery of Madeleine McCann` with Richard Bilton, they allowed the McCanns to vet it before it went out and they were apparently ok with it (there is a link for this somewhere and I will try and find it). We also know the BBC`s slant on this case - although I suppose one can always hope they`ve seen the light.

I can`t see where I`ve said Andy Redwood is inept - I would never say such a thing. It must be very difficult for him to be interviewed without showing any bias at all and I trust he doesn`t. What I`m saying is that he cannot show bias as it would be totally unprofessional.

Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by tigger on 22.04.12 10:57

Woofer wrote:
Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.
unquote

Wasn't it the case that footage was manipulated so that it seemed the Queen rudely flounced out of a room when no such event had occurred?
The final cut of the film cannot have been shown to the Queen before it was aired.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by Woofer on 22.04.12 11:16

@tigger wrote:Woofer wrote:
Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.
unquote

Wasn't it the case that footage was manipulated so that it seemed the Queen rudely flounced out of a room when no such event had occurred?
The final cut of the film cannot have been shown to the Queen before it was aired.

Don`t know about that one Tigger - I`d be quite surprised to hear they`d ever show the royals in a bad light, but there`s always a first I suppose. All I know is the BBC/Dimblebys et al are usually royalist, right wing, establishment etc.

It`s funny how, once again, the McCanns are compared with royalty.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by tigger on 22.04.12 11:40

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557640/TV-firm-in-Queen-film-row-offers-BBC-apology.html

Here it is Woofer.
The mcCanns aren't royalty - they're Emperor and Empress - with their new clothes that only believers can see...

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by Guest on 22.04.12 11:44

Isn't it rather odd that the BBC would have a comments section on a trailer, and for a programme that hasn't even aired. thinking

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by statsman on 22.04.12 11:52

The BBC has allowed "Dr David Payne" to put "Google Gaspar statements" as a comment. Well, well, well....

statsman

Posts : 118
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-02-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by sherlock on 22.04.12 12:04

@statsman wrote:The BBC has allowed "Dr David Payne" to put "Google Gaspar statements" as a comment. Well, well, well....


Oh yes - it is there nowHow long will it stay there though? There are also some other very good comments too.

sherlock

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by tigger on 22.04.12 12:14

@statsman wrote:The BBC has allowed "Dr David Payne" to put "Google Gaspar statements" as a comment. Well, well, well....

They've probably never bothered to look it up.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by bristow on 22.04.12 12:46

All so very strange.

What do you think PeterMac, will Panorama jeopardise the case airing while the review is ongoing, do you think something deeper is going on?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Panorama at the last minute ditches the programme, similar to the Jimmy Savile documentary that was shelved at the last moment and replaced by a fawning love-in instead.

Wish I could get my spirits up about this.

bristow

Posts : 823
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-11-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Liar

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.04.12 13:33

@gypsypeg wrote:Tony, I hope DCI Redwood has read that with care and has noted each and every point you made, especially regarding the corruption of police and ex-police officers in Iberian Police forces. That is positively disgusting.

Are you sure that Marcos Aragao Correia was "pretending to be a good samaritan"? You know how litigious these people can be. Its wise to be careful in what you say.
Daily Mirror, 4 February 2008:

QUOTE

The search for Madeleine McCann took a grim twist yesterday as divers trawled a remote reservoir for her body.

The hunt, near the Algarve resort where she went missing in May, followed an underworld tip-off to lawyer Marcos Correia.

Marcos, 32, said: "They told me she was thrown into a deserted lake with murky waters. I'm convinced this is the place."

It was a search that began in hope but gave way to heavy-hearted resignation as the weeks and months went by.

Now there are fears the hunt for Madeleine McCann could end in the murky depths of a reservoir 40 miles from where she went missing.

Good Samaritan Marcos Aragao Correia, 32, is paying for a team of British divers to trawl it after an underworld tip-off that she was dumped in a lake just days after being abducted.

And they have unearthed a 17ft cord he believes was used to tie up the four-year-old.

The desolate reservoir in Barragem do Arade - 150ft deep in places - has a beach and a walkway leading to a tower. It matches clues the Portuguese lawyer was given.

Marcos said: "I am convinced this is the place. My sources told me Madeleine was thrown into a deserted lake with murky waters, a beach and lots of trees.

"I believe this would have been the best place for someone to have dumped the body, based on my investigations...[REST SNIPPED]

UNQUOTE

++++++++++++++

Thanks for the reminder about litigious people, gypsypeg. As if I needed such a reminder at this time.

Months after the above and other similar stories appeared, Correia admitted that he'd lied about the so-called 'underworld sources' - and admitte that Metodo 3 had paid all the expenses for 'his' diving team.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by russiandoll on 22.04.12 14:18

perhaps as the 5th anniversary approaches and SY have been investigating for a year with a huge amount of money placed at its disposal it would seem appropriate to give an idea of what they have been doing, minus any details. That would be unprofessional and unthinkable surely, discussing an ongoing investigation whilst it is in progress?
I am confident nothing libellous will be stated.
Nothing along the lines of :
the evidence shows that the parents / parents and all/ parents and some of their holiday companions know what happened to Madeleine/ are aware of her whereabouts/ are involved in her disappearance..

however, surely any statement of fact cannpot be construed as libellous?
such as
the evidence so far points away from abduction from that apartment. there is no evidence of a break-in.
[plausible alternative, mentioned or not..there could have been an opportunistic abduction after the child had exited the apartment [ stated as being unlocked on numerous occasions] of her own volition.
Raises many questions in the viewers' minds....why was this plausible scenario dismissed immediately by the parents, anyone who has read the book knows this scenario when suggested was described for posterity by Kate as an insult to the intelligence. Really? The only reasons I and any logical viewers will probably think of to make a voluntary exit impossible are either the apartment was locked from the outside, or Madeleine was incapable of movement. Are a professional police force expected to take at face value Kate's statement that had Maddie exited of her own accord, she would not have closed doors/ gates and curtains? I think not. So hopefully there will be another video showing the tapas area, distance and sightline from tapas to 5a, hope we see the entrance to the patio area and the safety gate. And we can think without SY saying a thing.
Well, Maddie McCann could have exited via the patio door through a gap in the middle of patio curtains where they met when closed, just as I imagine Gerry, Kate and Matt did on their checks, no need to open fully then close again. No mention anywhere of these curtains being disturbed, is there? And she must have been able to open the patio door because her parents left it unlocked so she could exit in an emergency, did they not? So all standing between Madeleine and the road was the safety gate. Crucial for their story about how she could not [unable to] exit 5a of her own accord..
The safety gate, if secured correctly after each check, not only would she not have bothered closing it after her, before descending those steps, as stated by Kate, she would have been unable to open it in the first place..... just as it was designed for preventing... it is a CHILD SAFETY GATE.
Never did any of the adults who checked state the obvious reason why Maddie could not have got on to the street.......she could not have opened that gate at the top of the steps. Are we meant to think that for the checkers' convenience, they never bothered to secure it properly? This is what I would expect to hear about why Maddie could not exit that property....not that she would not have closed both gates behind her..she surely would not have got past the first gate at the top...unless she tried to climb over.]
If these things have gone through the SY investigators' minds, then I doubt they will be mentioned, but they cannot be sued for libel for stating what is fact. If there is no evidence of abduction from the stated palce at the stated time, that is a fact. There is no evidence to support that particular hypothesis. That is not libellous, it is a fact, surely?
Investigations are designed to reach an outcome where within set parameters which cannot be altered because they are fact, various hypotheses are given weight according to how well they tally with the known unalterable facts.
What the McCanns state are not facts, they are statements of acts or ommissions which have to be analysed for veracity in so far as they fit or do not fit in with what are known facts. Apartment layout, distance, weather conditions, time...for example.

What I am angry about is why in the first crucial interviews the questions were not part of the transcript, ar least the published one.... they were asked and stated.confronted with they stated.... SY might have to ignore all those first witness statements as we do not know [maybe they have a full transcript incl questions...] if the tapas bunch were asked leading questions, if they were harrassed, if they were given time to collect their thoughts.....it is important as part of a written record to be able to see what they were asked and how? I wish to God the 9 of them had been interviewed simultaneously , the childcare reasons for this not being done were laughable considering the creche facilities in OC.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by gypsypeg on 22.04.12 16:43

candyfloss wrote:Isn't it rather odd that the BBC would have a comments section on a trailer, and for a programme that hasn't even aired. thinking

The Radio Times has nothing to do with the BBC.

It is a the property of a small publishing house called Immediate Media Company. All the comments are on the publisher's site not on the BBC site at all.

Probably they don't even have anyone in the office at the weekend.


gypsypeg

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by gypsypeg on 22.04.12 16:46

@tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.


Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?

Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything? That is rather a hysterical response in advance of the programme.

I suspect that you are very wrong because people do think that their taxes should be spent on solving crime. It is one of the clearest things that every political door stepper hears. "We want our money spent on the right things like locking up criminals."

gypsypeg

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Foy in charge

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.04.12 17:12

@gypsypeg wrote:
@tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the McCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.
Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything?
That is a fair point that you make, gypsypeg. His appearance on the programme may not compromise the investigation at all. It depends on what he actually says.

Another brief point. As the SY Team have repeatedly emphasised, this is a review, not an investigation as such.

But in focussing on D.C.I. Andy Redwood, are we not forgetting the person he has to delvier his report to?

Namely: Commander Simon Foy.

Foy is best known for his work in wrongly trying to convict Barry George of the murder of Jill Dando.

While some claim that Dando was killed by a Serbian hit-man, in the midst of the Bosnian conflict, rumours abound that she had somehow stumbled on a paedophile ring amongst her TV work and was about to expose it.

Here's one view on Simon Foy's role in the Dando case:

A Policeman’s lot is not a happy one!

By Stanley Best, from insidetime issue September 2008



Following two appeals to the Court of Appeal and at the end of his retrial for allegedly murdering the delightful Jill Dando, Barry George emerged from the Old Bailey (the Central Criminal Court properly so called) into sunlight. I do not suppose that he expected to be feted, but still less, you may think, will he have expected to hear Commander Simon Foy (pictured), Head of the homicide and serious crime branch, say to assembled newspaper, radio and TV reporters on behalf of the Metropolitan Police that: “We are disappointed by today's verdict, but especially disappointed for Jill's family and friends”.

According to the New Oxford Dictionary of English, to be disappointed means to be ‘sad or displeased because someone or something has failed to fulfil one's hopes or expectations.' Jill Dando's fiance and her family and friends must surely, from the outset, have hoped only that the person who had wickedly killed her would be found and dealt with appropriately. The last thing, one imagines, that they, in their continued distress at the loss of a loved one, would have wanted is that a man who has been acquitted by a jury of the murder, and who thus leaves the court without the stain of conviction for that offence on him should have been unjustly otherwise dealt. That they may well have been concerned that Jill Dando's killer, who cut her life so cruelly short, is still at large is entirely possible; we must all share that concern.

What was there, however, in the verdict of the jury to disappoint Commander Foy and the Metropolitan Police? His role and that of every Constable is to prevent crime and apprehend alleged offenders. Has he - and have others who have expressed similar views at a verdict with which they disagreed - forgotten the oath taken on appointment as Constable which is in its essence, if I recall it clearly, as follows: “I declare that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the office of Constable without favour or affection, malice or ill will”.

To say that one is disappointed with the jury's verdict in favour of Barry George suggests, does it not, at least doubt as to the verdict on the part of Commander Foy and the Metropolitan Police for whom he speaks?

Let us suppose the impossible and that Commander Foy had had the great misfortune to have been wrongly charged and convicted of murder which he did not commit and had spent eight years in prison before being acquitted. As he leaves the Old Bailey understandably feeling vindicated, the Commissioner of Police speaks to the many outstretched media microphones saying: "We are disappointed by today's verdict …”

Would not the unhappy Commander Foy in these, I stress, imaginary circumstances feel that an attempt was being made to rob him of the jury's verdict? Did it not occur to him that his own ill-chosen words would induce the same feeling in the unfortunate Barry George? Is it not time for the Commissioner and Chief Constables generally to put a stop to these damaging ex cathedra pronouncements which, of recent wars, have become all too common?

As if Commander Foy's words were not bad enough in themselves, the Sunday Telegraph (August 3) reported that: 'Scotland Yard officials suggested (that) their detectives had little appetite for a new enquiry (but that) a different police force may be brought in to re-examine the huge body of evidence amassed during the investigation into the 37 year-old Crimewatch presenter's murder’.

If this meant that the Metropolitan Police were belatedly admitting that their earlier investigation got it wrong, then that would perhaps make better sense of the above, although it would still leave open the question of why, in a supposedly disciplined force, the fact that 'their detectives had little appetite for a new enquiry' should be the deciding factor. Surely even these days any police officer in any force, whatever his or her appetite for the job in hand, should do what he or she is ordered to do? It of course makes the words of Commander Foy even less appropriate than they appeared at first blush and raises the question: is Barry George to receive a full apology from the Commissioner?

Hard on the heels of the Barry George case came the suggestion by a police officer that the reduction from a whole life tariff to one of 37 years was ‘unforgivable’. Does this particular policeman really think that he knows better than the Court of Appeal?

The Law Society’s Gazette (July 31) reports concerns by the Chairman of the Bar Council (which I, a barrister, share) that proposals to allow solicitors henceforth to undertake advocacy in the higher courts (i.e. Crown Courts and above) without having to undertake, as now, additional training but instead for there to be only 'voluntary accreditation' (in other words, in effect, self-certification) can but lead to lowering of the standards of advocacy which, in the interests of justice, must be maintained. The Barry George case should be seen as a wake-up call, for if things can go wrong under our present system, then lowering standards can only make for further injustice.

Some solicitors who had hitherto not thought of themselves as experienced advocates are being encouraged to think of higher courts advocacy as a way of making up for loss of income in other aspects of practice. That cannot alone ever be a justification to aspire to do higher courts advocacy, the skill for which is honed by experienced barristers over many years of practice at the Bar. Solicitors and barristers alike should stick to their own lasts. Just as it would be foolish for me to attempt conveyancing, for example, so too a solicitor, without at the very least full training, should not be permitted to dabble in higher courts advocacy. If we recall the old adage ‘horses for courses’ then justice should remain, as it must at all times be, our paramount concern.

Stanley Best is a practising barrister at Barnstaple Chambers
Telephone/ Fax/Answerphone: 01837 83763.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by tigger on 22.04.12 17:21

@gypsypeg wrote:
@tigger wrote:IMO the fact that anyone from SY, but especially Andrew Redwood, is on that programme at all, compromises the investigation that is being run.

The only good point I can see in all this is that it won't help the mcCanns' popularity if the public are reminded of their taxes being spent in this way.


Have you not noticed that the Police in the UK do actually go on TV now and then during investigations/reviews and ask for public assistance?

Till you hear what he has to say how can you say he is compromising anything? That is rather a hysterical response in advance of the programme.

I suspect that you are very wrong because people do think that their taxes should be spent on solving crime. It is one of the clearest things that every political door stepper hears. "We want our money spent on the right things like locking up criminals."

I take exception at being told my post is a hysterical response. You are welcome to apologise.

I am familiar with Police going on TV asking for public assistance. This is normally the case in recent crimes - after a five year gap it's unlikely that a member of the public in the UK will suddenly remember some vital information. The crime did not take place in the UK.

Despite requests from members on this site and others - SY always said they could not comment as it is an ongoing investigation (don't ask me to find the reference - you'll just have to look)
I take it that SY is now going to say something very publicly despite the above statement. They're not just going to show a picture of the man.
Therefore - as the case has not officially been concluded, I feel that it compromises the investigation. A police officer making any kind of statement on TV before any result is achieved, compromises the case IMO. He shouldn't be there at all.

Re the taxes: giving the McCanns preferential treatment by using nearly 3 million pounds for this investigation does give people the right to see what it's being spent on.
Normally, the taxes paid cover criminal investigations by the police. I've never heard of a serious crime case which was dropped for lack of money. So why does just this one case merit so much extra money? The case could have been re-opened - and the British police force would have worked on it as they did before - for the price of a stamp.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Madeleine: The Last Hope? - Panorama UPDATED 7.30 25th April (only certain areas) and 8.30 pm Mon 30th April 2012

Post by aiyoyo on 22.04.12 17:22

@Woofer wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
@Woofer wrote:
You`re totally right Tigger, in fact I haven`t heard one comment agreeing with SY doing this. At least Panorama have had the guts to now name Andy Redwood. We`ll have to wait and see if there`s any bias to what he says - maybe he has stayed impartial. But there`s obviously no way he can go on national TV and cast doubts about the McCann`s abduction story or I`m sure Carter Ruck would straight away be issuing a libel suit against the BBC. Equally he can`t really declare they had nothing to do with it - don`t see how he can do it without any bias. I tend to think it will be in the McCanns favour because the McCann`s would have had to approve it first, as they did with the previous Panorama programme.

Sorry Woofer I find it hard to understand your point.
Why made you think the MET Police need mccanns approval to do anything or say anything? Who are the mccanns?
Even the Queen cannot expect that!

Andy Redwood didn't get to become senior police detective by been inept ( at least I hope not).
Surely he knows where the lines are drawn.








Hello Aiyoyo - I am assuming that, like the last time Panorama did their programme `The Mystery of Madeleine McCann` with Richard Bilton, they allowed the McCanns to vet it before it went out and they were apparently ok with it (there is a link for this somewhere and I will try and find it). We also know the BBC`s slant on this case - although I suppose one can always hope they`ve seen the light.

I can`t see where I`ve said Andy Redwood is inept - I would never say such a thing. It must be very difficult for him to be interviewed without showing any bias at all and I trust he doesn`t. What I`m saying is that he cannot show bias as it would be totally unprofessional.

Regarding the Queen, I expect the BBC would allow the Queen (or her advisors) to vet anything they were going to broadcast.

Apparently I didnt explain myself clearly.
What I meant was, if the Police is investigating a crime, surely there is no need for them to seek anyone's approval before they can comment or talk about it in public if they feel it is necessary.

. Surely the Police, being "law enforcer", is an independent entity not answerable to anyone (not even to royalty) except to the crown prosecutor if I am not wrong. Even royalty is not above the law, and if they were to fall foul of the law and are being investigated surely the Police are not obliged to ask them to vet anything before they've the liberty to come on national TV to talk about the case on a "need to basis". So in that sense, why should common folks mccanns expect to be treated differently. I should hardly think they have the right to ask to vet anything from the Police.

Also surely the Police, of all people, should know all about jeopardising trial and should avoid that pitfall. Hence one would imagine a senior Police Officer didnt acquire his rank by being inept is my reasoning. I would imagine Andy Redwood interview is a necessity basis ( though I cant fathom what it would be) rather than a wish to fill in the public on the case.

Of course he could prove me wrong. In that case people's worst fear may be proven correct.
I would be dead surprised if he comes on prematurely only to indicate they are still working hard to net the abductor, because there is no need to make a banal announcement like that.
When they used the words " the parents are adamant she was taken by a predator" and "last hope" one would imagine it isn't about their last hope to net the illusive abductor because the sky's the limit in that area, so where's there hope, let alone last hope.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 18 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10 ... 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum