Re: YouTube - BBC Crimewatch Promo

by **tigger** 12.10.13 10:32

windchime wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
I'm not buying wrote:Forgive me if this has already been noted, but isn't the child in the brief glimpse we are given of her feet, being carried the wrong way round, that is, with her feet on the 'abductor's' left. Didn't Jane Tanner say the feet were on his right?
I'm Not Buying - me neither!

Yes I agree that the child in the reconstruction is being carried the wrong way round according to Jane Tanner's statement.

Perish the thought that the whole programme is going to be inaccurate!
It will all be inaccurate because firstly it has been reconstructed in another place completely and secondly none of the T9 can remember what part of their statements are true or not now.

Thing is it matters not to the millions of people out there who will watch it and be taken in by the whole thing yet again! Most of these people are already being brainwashed by the little advertising clips these past few days. All I can say is I am still at a loss to work out why the newspapers seem to have gone very very quiet for two days. No reporting at all - unless someone can show me otherwise!

Apart from the headline on the Daily Mail online page today (may be on the print but not got it yet!) re Esther McVey!!

It's exactly the same way products are sold by advertising. I am beginning to wonder if sublimal advertising is being used as well - i.e. a split second shot of the pair surrounded by a halo or just a message:
the McCanns are innocent! Give money! Errrm. Lots.

Sublimal advertising sold a lot of icecreams in cinemas I believe, it's supposed to be illegal now but sarcastic

by Liz Eagles 12.10.13 10:37

tigger wrote:
windchime wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
I'm not buying wrote:Forgive me if this has already been noted, but isn't the child in the brief glimpse we are given of her feet, being carried the wrong way round, that is, with her feet on the 'abductor's' left. Didn't Jane Tanner say the feet were on his right?
I'm Not Buying - me neither!

Yes I agree that the child in the reconstruction is being carried the wrong way round according to Jane Tanner's statement.

Perish the thought that the whole programme is going to be inaccurate!
It will all be inaccurate because firstly it has been reconstructed in another place completely and secondly none of the T9 can remember what part of their statements are true or not now.

Thing is it matters not to the millions of people out there who will watch it and be taken in by the whole thing yet again! Most of these people are already being brainwashed by the little advertising clips these past few days. All I can say is I am still at a loss to work out why the newspapers seem to have gone very very quiet for two days. No reporting at all - unless someone can show me otherwise!

Apart from the headline on the Daily Mail online page today (may be on the print but not got it yet!) re Esther McVey!!
It's exactly the same way products are sold by advertising. I am beginning to wonder if sublimal advertising is being used as well - i.e. a split second shot of the pair surrounded by a halo or just a message:
the McCanns are innocent! Give money! Errrm. Lots.

Sublimal advertising sold a lot of icecreams in cinemas I believe, it's supposed to be illegal now but

Cinema advertising was used re Madeleine I believe and was removed as it came on prior to a Shrek film and parents objected as it was inappropriate. I've done so much reading this week!

by **PeterMac** 12.10.13 11:22

various people wrote:So he has a revelation and sits on it for months? Still sits on it? Is the reason that it did not cause the case the be reopened in Portugal that he is still sitting on it and never shared it,
What I don't understand is that kate and Gerry must have know about this revelation and YET they let andy redwood keep it for 6 months.
let me tell you andy redwood the mccanns are taking the pi** out of you too

Exactly.

The parents AND Redwood have left Madeleine in the hands of her favourite predatory Pae*** for 6 MONTHS in her Hellish Lair within 10 miles of PdL
until their television slot comes free.

How many parents in the world would do this ?
How many Senior Police officers in the world would do this ?

Is this not Child Cruelty of the most egregious type ?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.10.13 11:28

PeterMac wrote:
various people wrote:So he has a revelation and sits on it for months? Still sits on it? Is the reason that it did not cause the case the be reopened in Portugal that he is still sitting on it and never shared it,
What I don't understand is that kate and Gerry must have know about this revelation and YET they let andy redwood keep it for 6 months.
let me tell you andy redwood the mccanns are taking the pi** out of you too
Exactly.

The parents AND Redwood have left Madeleine in the hands of her favourite predatory Pae*** for 6 MONTHS in her Hellish Lair within 10 miles of PdL
until their television slot comes free.

How many parents in the world would do this ?
How many Senior Police officers in the world would do this ?

Is this not Child Cruelty of the most egregious type ?

Either that...

...OR...

both Redwood and his superiors at Britian's premier police force and the producers, editors and presenters of BBC Crimewatch and their superiors at the BBC (ALL OF WHOM HAVE BY NOW BEEN PUT ON THE CLEAREST POSSIBLE - AND PUBLIC - NOTICE ABOUT THE MANY AND VARIED OBJECTIONS TO THIS BROADCAST) know that the whole Hollywood-style 'Crimewatch Special' on Monday is a huge and very expensive load of pure hogwash and utter baloney

by plebgate 12.10.13 11:38

Up until now the media have printed that Maddie was abducted. IMO many of the general public will have thought maybe somebody took Maddie for money, or that a nice couple took her to look after her.

If on Monday the Crimewatch programme mentions/hints that jigsawman is a known paedophile, I think that the very mention of the word could really turn the tide of general public opinion against them.

Maddie was not taken whilst the parents were in the apartment on any day or night, she was taken whilst there were 3 people alone in the apartment and all 3 of those people were under the age of 4 years old. 3 people who would never be able to defend themselves against anything or anyone and I think this appeal/reconstruction is going to bring that home to many, many more people.

by Woofer 12.10.13 12:04

[quote=candyfloss][/quote]
This pic should get the top award for the `sef-defined victim of the century`.

Not a victim in the true sense of the word but a poser as a victim in order to manipulate and control others. Its a well known personality disorder. She is excellent at it.

by russiandoll 12.10.13 12:07

Or the couple have now got everything they asked for, review and a crimewatch style reconstruction and can't argue that any case against them will be prejudiced. The BBC and SY have gone to unprecedented lengths to show their account, but it is baloney.

This is all still at the investigation stage. What are the obligations and strategies of a police force when, because the CPS are involved, some kind of charges might be brought in the future against UK citizens?

Something is going on with the drip feed to the media.

The trailer is being touted like a thriller. BBC totally to blame for that.

Ensuring big viewing figures, but why?

Why is this not being shown in the country where the crime was committed?

The police would not put a child at risk for a minute and would ask for media silence while they worked to find and rescue her.

by Woofer 12.10.13 12:25

I could be wrong but I can`t ever see them being brought to trial by jury. There can`t be any eligible jury members in UK that don`t have a strong opinion on this couple. Not sure if Portugal have the jury system.

However, even if they`re never called to court, they will always have the reputation which, ironically, they`ve striven hard to slough off. They will go down in history alongside the Ramsays and the Anthonys. It will permeate to all their family and associates.IMO.

by Cheshire Cat 12.10.13 12:28

We keep hearing about the appeals to tourists who were in Luz at the time Madeleine vanished but it is obvious from the Ocean Club records that there was some kind of medical conference or business meeting going on at the time. As well as other medical professionals there was Mr Weinberger from Enigma Diagnostics (part owned by DSTL - British Ministry of Defence). Additionally, we have identified a financial modeller, financiers, software specialists, pharmaceutical employees. A cast of people that would populate a project team perhaps at the market development stage of it's life-cycle. Nothing sinister in this suggestion, possibly a piece of high-tech medical diagnostic equipment using Intellectual Property Rights licensed to Enigma Diagnostics.
That may have been the primary reason Gerry was there "not here to enjoy myself" - he may have been there as a subject matter expert in MRI in the context of the medical application. Why is this relevant? Because if there was a network of business people at the Ocean Club then this is a significant fact. SY need to be appealing not only to random tourists but also to this network of people who may have been part of a much bigger group.

by Ayniia 12.10.13 13:21

Cheshire Cat wrote:We keep hearing about the appeals to tourists who were in Luz at the time Madeleine vanished but it is obvious from the Ocean Club records that there was some kind of medical conference or business meeting going on at the time.

And of course SY conveniently forgets about PDL locals, you know, people that actually live there. Those people who went out looking for Madeleine trough the night and day. But of course they wouldn't look good on tabloids covers...

by Angelique 12.10.13 13:27

Woofer wrote:I could be wrong but I can`t ever see them being brought to trial by jury. There can`t be any eligible jury members in UK that don`t have a strong opinion on this couple. Not sure if Portugal have the jury system.

However, even if they`re never called to court, they will always have the reputation which, ironically, they`ve striven hard to slough off. They will go down in history alongside the Ramsays and the Anthonys. It will permeate to all their family and associates.IMO.

I agree now with all this media exposure there will never be a chance of having a trial in the UK.

How convenient.

by AndyB 12.10.13 13:32

russiandoll wrote:This is all still at the investigation stage. What are the obligations and strategies of a police force when, because the CPS are involved, some kind of charges might be brought in the future against UK citizens?

I would go further than that: I would say that, for British police and the CPS to be justifiably involved there must be a reasonable possibility of bringing charges against someone in a UK court. Unfortunately, abduction (or kidnapping, or however you want to express it) is not one of the crimes that can be prosecuted in the UK if it was committed abroad. Even if Madeleine was abducted and SY found the abductor and he was an English man living in England they still couldn't prosecute him because they wouldn't have the jurisdiction. All they could do would be to ask the Portuguese to prosecute. All of which begs the question, what, exactly, are SY investigating? What was it they found in the review that allowed them to convince the CPS that there was a realistic prospect of bringing a prosecution in the UK? It is because the answer to this question is unknown that I still retain a small, very dim glimmer of hope that justice will prevail.

As far as the police strategy is concerned, it is entirely possible that, having found some evidence of an offence, SY have started their investigation from scratch and are merely following, step by step, the section of the manual that's entitled "How to investigate a reported abduction of a child". We've now reached the stage where it says to do a televised appeal for information. Its entirely possible that SY have the same concerns that many of us do about the parents but they're merely going through the motions because they don't know what else to do and don't yet have enough evidence to charge them. As Peter Mac has asked several times; would a professional police officer really delay for 6 months if he believed that a child was alive? I guess it all boils down to whether you think the Met are professional or corrupt and I'm afraid their history does not encourage me to believe the former.

by ultimaThule 12.10.13 13:42

tiny wrote:this thread should read BBC CRIMEWATCH PANTO

It seems to me Christmas came early for the McCanns when their eldest daughter, Madeleine, disappeared in 2007, since when they appear to have had a fixation with fairy tales.

by Guest 12.10.13 14:15

Woofer wrote:[quote=candyfloss]

This pic should get the top award for the `sef-defined victim of the century`.

Not a victim in the true sense of the word but a poser as a victim in order to manipulate and control others. Its a well known personality disorder. She is excellent at it.[/quote]

I disagree. That look is genuine. That is the worst I have seen her. That is the first time I have seen a photo of her and saw genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion.

by Guest 12.10.13 14:23

I find it hard to believe that look is genuine.

A reminder of this clip from 2008 (the eve of the 1st anniversary) when at 2.40 they changed from "grieving parents" to "what a hoot this is" in the blink of an eye.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7380419.stm

Oh to be a fly on the wall to hear what they say when they're being their normal selves.

by Angelique 12.10.13 14:23

Yes, this the worst I have seen of Kate.

But is this genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion?

If it is genuine - is it from actual loss of Madeleine, the abduction of Madeleine, the fear of being found out or the possible ensuing bankruptcy of the Libel Trial?

by whmon 12.10.13 14:24

I disagree. That look is genuine. That is the worst I have seen her. That is the first time I have seen a photo of her and saw genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion.

melisandeAnd! And!...What appears to be a complete lack of earrings!

by susible 12.10.13 14:51

whmon wrote:I disagree. That look is genuine. That is the worst I have seen her. That is the first time I have seen a photo of her and saw genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion.

melisandeAnd! And!...What appears to be a complete lack of earrings!

Looks like it...it's almost as if she thinks that to progress her libel trial she should suddenly start looking like a bag lady...the last couple of pics of her look like she got dressed in the dark. Does she honestly think that everyone is that gullible? Going from the immaculately groomed St Kate, international jetsetter, ambassador for missing people etc etc to frumpy housewife just to prove how "broken" she is by Snr Amaral's claims. Does she not remember that we've all seen all of the previous pics over the last 6 years!

Between that and her belief that possible new information from SY is going to win them the case, I sometimes wonder about their intelligence levels.

by littlepixie 12.10.13 14:54

She's just left her foundation and mascara off, nothing else. I look like that every morning big grin

by Guest 12.10.13 14:55

Angelique wrote:Yes, this the worst I have seen of Kate.

But is this genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion?

If it is genuine - is it from actual loss of Madeleine, the abduction of Madeleine, the fear of being found out or the possible ensuing bankruptcy of the Libel Trial?

I don't know when that was recorded but must have been fairly recently. I wonder if it was between visits to the Lisbon court. I think her look in that photo is a combination of everything you have said bar 'abduction' . I would go with ' taken' .

Eta and the fear of evidence from the files being brought up in court and made public. Let's face it, only the people interested in the mccanns case will trawl through the internet and find out about the case files, thebook, etc. The rest get their info from the newspapers and we all know where that is originating from.

by susible 12.10.13 14:58

littlepixie wrote:She's just left her foundation and mascara off, nothing else. I look like that every morning

I doubt that littlepixie, you haven't been carrying around a burden of guilt and lies for 6 years, I'm sure you look far better roses

by tiny 12.10.13 14:58

whmon wrote:I disagree. That look is genuine. That is the worst I have seen her. That is the first time I have seen a photo of her and saw genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion.

melisandeAnd! And!...What appears to be a complete lack of earrings!

this look of hers is all for the public,dont forget SHE thinks she is the victim and make up or lack of it makes a person look different.
she must spend hours in front of the mirror perfecting this look.

by endgame 12.10.13 14:58

whmon wrote:I disagree. That look is genuine. That is the worst I have seen her. That is the first time I have seen a photo of her and saw genuine emotion, fear and exhaustion.

melisandeAnd! And!...What appears to be a complete lack of earrings!

I think you have to accept that this programme is made by skilled film makers with all the technical skills available to them who are able to use make up, lighting, shot angles and endless rehearsals and takes to achieve the exact look that they want. They will have started making the programme with a closely defined view of what their end product was going to be and then worked towards that. The idea that they simply asked Kate / Redwood to speak their lines and simply recorded what happened is untenable. Every second of what you see will have been quite deliberately created, rehearsed, reshot until the right look/tone was achieved. That is partly why it has taken six months to do. The intention is to eliminate anything that is actually real or genuine and substitute a completely false reality which the gullible will accept as real. That is what film making does and this is a mini-film whose message is absolutely clear from the first words Kate speaks - they've done nothing wrong. Everything will be honed to reinforce that message which ironically has absolutely nothing to do with the reconstruction, the e-fit or solving the case.

by ultimaThule 12.10.13 15:00

Woofer wrote:I could be wrong but I can`t ever see them being brought to trial by jury. There can`t be any eligible jury members in UK that don`t have a strong opinion on this couple. Not sure if Portugal have the jury system.

However, even if they`re never called to court, they will always have the reputation which, ironically, they`ve striven hard to slough off. They will go down in history alongside the Ramsays and the Anthonys. It will permeate to all their family and associates.IMO.

Section 7 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 as amended by Section 72 of the Sex Offenders Act 2003 extended the jurisdiction of the courts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to cover certain sexual offences committed abroad.

When I read that within a very short time of Madeleine's disappearance the McCanns consulted English lawyers who specialise in extradition proceedings, I wondered whether they had concern about being extradited to the UK which led me to speculate about what offences, other than child abuse and neglect for which there was no prospect of extradition, they may have committed in Portugal.

I can think of very few circumstances which would necessitate the parent(s) of a child who is purported to have been abducted by person(s) unknown to them to have need of the services of lawyers in respect of that child's disappearance, and more particularly at a time when I would have thought they had more pressing matters on their mind(s) but, as has been clearly demonstrated, the McCanns' behaviour is markedly different to that of the majority of parents worldwide.

by AndyB 12.10.13 15:15

ultimaThule wrote:When I read that within a very short time of Madeleine's disappearance the McCanns consulted English lawyers who specialise in extradition proceedings, I wondered whether they had concern about being extradited to the UK which led me to speculate about what offences, other than child abuse and neglect for which there was no prospect of extradition, they may have committed in Portugal.

Surely it was the other way around - concern that they would be extradited to Portugal from the UK?