Re: CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION - However, Kate and Gerry have banned the re-enactment of their daughter’s disappearance from taking place in Portugal through fear of angering the country’s police.

by ultimaThule 08.10.13 22:13

Hicks wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
juliet wrote:IIRC when Yvonne Martin talked to the mccanns (and before Payne interfered and got her away) KM talked about a "couple" taking the child.
Yes, this never got the airtime it deserved did it?

Add that to the alleged "soothing couple" and Madeleine;s "why didn't you come when I cried" AND the "they've taken her".

And IF this is what the focus of the Crimewatch appeal is going to be about, then the ONLY conclusion we can come to is that the McCanns KNOW who is supposed to have whisked Madeleine off and have decided , for reasons known only to themselves, not to actually say so in public for 6 years, but have instead spent their time raising money and poking into matters of no concern to them.

But then we always come back to those pesky dogs, don't we?
Add to that list the 'several postcard' type photo's of M ready to hand out a couple of hours after she went missing.
The relatives giving up full time jobs to focus on the 'fighting fund'. Fighting what exactly?
The clip of GM laughing and joking on the balcony (unaware he was being filmed) a few days after. No grief, never any grief.

What better way to leapfrog the social and political ladder than to be seen constantly in the public eye campaigning for this and that. Wasn't GM looking for some position within the Labour Party?

The evidence points in one direction and in all probability this is the right direction, yet, I can't help but wonder.
Is M living with people known to the McCann's ?A relative? A close friend?
Was this whole saga only ever a money making scam?

This is the reason I came to this forum.

In as much as anyone who's not in possession of all of the facts/evidence can, I've looked at this case from every angle and, in common with some 80% of the UK's population, I'm not convinced the McCanns are blameless.

I prefer to incline to the view that Madeleine is not missing, and never has been, and that for reasons known only to themselves, and to those few who need to know, her parents reached an accomodation with another party/or parties for her to live elsewhere, but should this be the case, and should the net truly be closing in as purported in the press, Madeleine's life may be in great danger.

Just when I think I've made my mind up, in common with juliet's machinations, up pops a vision of Eddie and Keela with their keen warm noses and eagerness to work, and I'm convinced that the child died in 5A as a direct result of one or other of her parents' actions, following which event her body was concealed or otherwise disposed of by them with a little help from one or more of their friends/relatives.

Either way, given the McCanns' behaviour throughout, we are looking at a pair of callous, calculating, and cold-hearted individuals and, in the event that Madeleine is found alive, I'll be first in line to campaign against her being returned to them.

by Seek truth 08.10.13 22:13

Portugal aren't showing the reconstruction programme,was it their decision really?
It was The Mccanns who didn't want it filmed there, anyway.

If Portugal were to show it, the Portuguese know the files they know more about the case and they'd surely complain that the reconstruction is not correct maybe.

by plebgate 08.10.13 22:17

Seek truth wrote:Portugal aren't showing the reconstruction programme,was it their decision really?
It was The Mccanns who didn't want it filmed there, anyway.

If Portugal were to show it, the Portuguese know the files they know more about the case and they'd surely complain that the reconstruction is not correct maybe.

A valid question imo Seek truth.

by ultimaThule 08.10.13 22:30

plebgate wrote:
Seek truth wrote:Portugal aren't showing the reconstruction programme,was it their decision really?
It was The Mccanns who didn't want it filmed there, anyway.

If Portugal were to show it, the Portuguese know the files they know more about the case and they'd surely complain that the reconstruction is not correct maybe.
A valid question imo Seek truth.

There's some mention of this on one of the other threads - I'll link if I find it.

As far as I recall, it's claimed that none of the Portuguese broadcasters have expressed any interest in showing it which, given the level of public interest in the ongoing libel trial, I find hard to believe.

by russiandoll 08.10.13 22:31

I do not understand the laws in Portugal. I imagine that the Mcs managed to film their own documentary there as it was them and media involved.
This one has the involvement of a foreign police force, so maybe it brings up all kinds of problems.

I would also imagine that cut into the Spanish episodes of eating and drinking there will be photos of OC and its environs with distances and times shown on screen showing us who did what and when

by ShuBob 08.10.13 22:57

If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not nah

by ultimaThule 08.10.13 23:44

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not

The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand.

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.

by ShuBob 09.10.13 0:12

ultimaThule wrote:
ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not
The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand.

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.

According to reports, Kate applied under her maiden name so I doubt that will be an option. It's either both or neither IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.10.13 0:19

Still no doctor being called to provide the necessary medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

by nobodythereeither 09.10.13 0:21

Tony Bennett wrote:Still no doctor being called to provide the necessary medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

Yes exactly.

That's a bit of a major omission on the part of the prosecution ...... which I'm sure the judge has noted.

by marconi 09.10.13 0:59

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not

ShuBob, very well said. I hadn't think of that. On their last interview together, the McCanns told that the Yard was close to what happened.
Gerry told about the many pieces of the puzzle, he said that the Yard was close to, while they still were "miles and miles away", a proof they don't know what is going on.

by ultimaThule 09.10.13 1:02

Tony Bennett wrote:Still no doctor being called to provide the necessay medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

I wonder why? As it can't be because they don't know any shrinks, GPs, clinical psychologists, etc, or can easily obtain referrals to the best professional help, I'm forced to conclude that K&G don't want to ~~share their secrets~~ alleviate their alleged ailments.

What manner of lawyer would advise a client seeking ~~huge~~ punitive damages for serious/permanent depression, tramautic stress, insomnia, panic attacks, emotional suffering, etc, to wing it without so much as providing evidence of a prescription for sleepers or anti-d's? One who was supremely confident of success or one whose client believes they ~~walk on water~~ have no need to provide any tangible proof of their claims as their word should be taken as gospel?

I suspect it came as something of a ~~horrible~~ shock to TM when Dr Amaral and his co-defendants didn't immediately ~~cave~~ hand over all their worldly possessions when K&G's writs were served on them.

by ultimaThule 09.10.13 1:14

ShuBob wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not
The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand.

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.
According to reports, Kate applied under her maiden name so I doubt that will be an option. It's either both or neither IMO.

The fact they have filed using different surnames is irrevelant as it is known to the court that K&G are married to each other and they are enjoined as Plaintiffs together with the children of the marriage in a single action - if this were not the case, they would have each called their own witnesses to substantiate whatever part of their individual claim differed from the whole.

The judge is free to say yay or nay to either or both of them and her decision is what K&G and Dr Amaral will be required to abide by.

by marconi 09.10.13 1:36

Still 5 days left and what will happen?

I pray we will not see things we have seen a 1000 times. It seems that Portugal will not broadcast Crimewatch, a window of opportunily for the McCanns, to use that as an excuse to protect them somehow.
Perhaps not. We have to wait.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.10.13 6:50

A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.

by aiyoyo 09.10.13 7:13

Good Grief, that woman is barking.

As if SY's work has any influence in the Portuguese Jurisdiction!

Besides, her case of libel has nothing to do with the Review.

If she's going there to piss off the Judge that will seal the verdict.

by sweetex 09.10.13 7:21

aiyoyo wrote:Good Grief, that woman is barking.

As if SY's work has any influence in the Portuguese Jurisdiction!

Besides, her case of libel has nothing to do with the Review.

If she's going there to piss off the Judge that will seal the verdict.

It is two seperate things. NO "New" evidence is going to make a difference to the book trial. He has written the book based on his experience when investigating the case. He believe that was he has written is the truth. Not only him but the team that worked with him including opinions of UK officers (the one's that initiated the bringing in of the dogs).

The trial is about "Did the book hamper the search" - That is the only question that should be answered. The only question that is relevant.

by Smokeandmirrors 09.10.13 7:23

And quite clearly, the book did nothing whatsoever to hamper the search, because the good British taxpayer is coughing up £6k a DAY for over two years.

Therefore, if the Judge has a single functioning brain cell, there can only be one verdict.

by sweetex 09.10.13 7:32

Smokeandmirrors wrote:And quite clearly, the book did nothing whatsoever to hamper the search, because the good British taxpayer is coughing up £6k a DAY for over two years.

Therefore, if the Judge has a single functioning brain cell, there can only be one verdict.

Indeed.

And we can include, the trial is NOT about

How it effected the family
How it effected the twins
How the twins will react when they read it one day
etc.

Plain and simple: Did the book stop people from searching.

Answer: NO it did not. SY's "abduction" investigation and the thousands of "sightings" is a clear indication of that.

by plebgate 09.10.13 7:59

Tony Bennett wrote:A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.

I don't think this judge will be swayed by heartbreaking appeals, the judge has shown that she is interested in FACTS, which as you rightly pointed out earlier TB, doctors/psychiatrists testimony would help considerably.

by Beanie 09.10.13 8:19

IMO Perhaps no medical evidence has been offered by the McCanns as it may show Kate was suffering from depression and anxiety before going to Portugal, hence the reason family and friends were continually offering their help.

by Guest 09.10.13 8:37

plebgate wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.
I don't think this judge will be swayed by heartbreaking appeals, the judge has shown that she is interested in FACTS, which as you rightly pointed out earlier TB, doctors/psychiatrists testimony would help considerably.

In all these years Kate hasn't managed to make a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the kidnappers.

"Madeleine's lovely" just isn't going to hack it. Perhaps she's planning to collapse in the courtroom while wailing plaintively, "Won't somebody think of her genitals!"

by marxman 09.10.13 8:53

Hypothetically speaking, could it be possible that this Crimewatch
reconstruction be nothing other than a damage limitation strategy
devised by extradition lawyers and a means to scupper any notion
of the perpetrators receiving a 'fair' trial?
By polluting public opinion world wide, creating conflicting opinions
based on untruths and conjecture and conjuring up an image of the
suspects being victims, may establish a situation were a trail may
not be possible.
I hope I'm wrong, but what say you?

by nobodythereeither 09.10.13 10:22

Beanie wrote:IMO Perhaps no medical evidence has been offered by the McCanns as it may show Kate was suffering from depression and anxiety before going to Portugal, hence the reason family and friends were continually offering their help.

Very good point.

by Guest 09.10.13 10:40

Poe wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.
I don't think this judge will be swayed by heartbreaking appeals, the judge has shown that she is interested in FACTS, which as you rightly pointed out earlier TB, doctors/psychiatrists testimony would help considerably.
In all these years Kate hasn't managed to make a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the kidnappers.

"Madeleine's lovely" just isn't going to hack it. Perhaps she's planning to collapse in the courtroom while wailing plaintively, "Won't somebody think of her genitals!"

Perfect

CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION - However, Kate and Gerry have banned the re-enactment of their daughter’s disappearance from taking place in Portugal through fear of angering the country’s police.