CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 1 DISCUSSION****

Thats right Jowie,  seems to me he is NOT buying McCanns version at all.

Me wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

Excellent observation a la style Sherlock Holmes!  Good to see you back Me!

So Redwood's revelation moment is Tanner's faceless man came forward and made himself known to Redwood no less!  
Did he even have a mouth to speak?  He's Brit no doubt, English speaking no need for translator and all that, not swarthy after all.

The E-fits allegedly been sitting in their private detectives files for years, yet Team Mccann produced many hybrid/morphed version of the faceless man over the years -  priceless!  

Redwood proclaimed that the unidentified men they seek may have an innocent explanation but on after thought offered 20K reward to nab them for abduction.  
The Portuguese are having the last laugh enjoying Scotland Yard's quagmire, while the Daily Mail hides behind trolls to print negatives about the duo.
It's all out in the open all those info that weren't before.

Is Redwood's elaborated and expensive HOAX whitewash remains a $64M question.

Me wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

The thought crossed my kind that maybe Maddie got up to go to the loo before the 9:05 visit. Would sound fairly normal.

Searcher wrote:Portia - my understanding from tonight is that JT saw a child being collected from the night creche - in other words, an innocent but actual sighting.  ?

so did deadwood say she was at the same place that Gerry and Wilkins were,but they still never saw her. or has deadwood changed her route

aiyoyo wrote:
So Redwood's revelation moment is Tanner's faceless man came forward and made himself known to Redwood no less!  
Did he even have a mouth to speak?  He's Brit no doubt, English speaking no need for translator and all that, not swarthy after all.

Re-watching just now and Redwood just said 'the British father' - which makes it all the more unlikely that he's wandered around for the past 6.5 years without realising it was him on this iconic sketch.

Apologies if I am repeating points other people have made (running late for work so haven't got time to read all the posts since last night before I go) but having watched the ludicrous Crimewatch last night the following occurred to me:

Redwood is using McCann vocabulary all the time, speaking of keys and jigsaws and unlocking. 

Nothing on that programme was new or revelatory.  How dare Redwood imply that any of it was something his team had discovered or worked out for themselves without the PJ having got there first and checked it all out and dismissed it?  Apart from things they weren't allowed to pursue, of course, like the Smith sighting which is suddenly "on message".  Also there was no mention last night of the phone records, again something the PJ were prevented from using.

Having recently returned from PdL I don't think there was any residential accommodation that the 10.00 pm McStroller could have been heading towards where the Smith family saw him - it is mostly pubs and restaurants and then the beach and rocks.  Nor was it an obvious route from the crèche to any Ocean Club accommodation - far from it.

Daybreak are following closely.  They have apparently had 300 calls and 170 emails.  

The new focus is on burglaries that increased in the area.  In one apparently the burglar peered into a cot.  Daybreak is a McCann feast this morning with old LK at the helm.

Seek truth wrote:They're saying, the person Jane tanner saw has only spoken now after all these years, are they going to get away with it? Was that child in pyjamas too? WTF.


     Really? After all those years of investigating?

But they haven't explained why Jane never told them straight away, when They needed to find Madeleine at 10pm or even at 9.15, so she went to sit back down to EAT instead (after seeing a child in pyjamas in a mans arms, had she forgotten, why she'd gone to check on her kids? To CHECK, and she didn't know her friends kids were left alone?


So the libel trial stopped for now to start in November and the judge knew about this, didn't she, they all knew.


. 

And they never explained why her sighting was pencilled into no less than two hand-written timelines, BEFORE she told them

BRODFB wrote:

Me wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

The thought crossed my kind that maybe Maddie got up to go to the loo before the 9:05 visit. Would sound fairly normal.

What ?? Fairly normal for a 3 year old to wake up in a fairly strange environment, go to the loo in the dark, put the bathroom light on, have a pee, wash hands, switch light off, go back to bedroom, check on her siblings and get back into bed without wondering where her parents were, crying out or calling for them ???  Yeah right - pull the other one.

ChuckieD wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
So Redwood's revelation moment is Tanner's faceless man came forward and made himself known to Redwood no less!  
Did he even have a mouth to speak?  He's Brit no doubt, English speaking no need for translator and all that, not swarthy after all.

Re-watching just now and Redwood just said 'the British father' - which makes it all the more unlikely that he's wandered around for the past 6.5 years without realising it was him on this iconic sketch.

Of course that poor man does not know that the swarthy faceless creature was supposed to be him, but he must surely know the route he'd taken on that fateful night!

Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

My first post, I used to visit the original forum a lot, hoping for progress, then got so sick of the whole thing I gave up and only look in here every now and again. I have no idea what actually happened to this little girl, but I do think that her parents and co. have tried to cover up the events of that night in a fog of misdirection.  Whether that was to cover bad parenting or worse I have no idea.  

What I do think has not been completely looked at is why all the comings and goings from the dinner table. Has anyone ever said if that was the normal state of play for this group- not just at diner but in the bars the previous nights/ previous trips and home on nights out etc.   What would make young (ish) upwardly mobile professionals need to leave the table every 1/2 - 1hr or so.- If not the norm then that would be strange in itself, if the norm including bars then the to and fro wondering may have had little to do with the checking on children an instead perhaps were for another reason.


2nd thing on my mind was with all the to and fro that was going on in the apartment and routes to it, it must have been like the hall seen out of Risky Business, if any planned abductor (crime gang) was about they would have run a mile before going anywhere near that apartment that night.  So that leaves a chance abduction  or her leaving herself to go look for her missing parents then being snatched or in an accident or an accident and cover up.  

If as most on here seem to think its was the cover up option why would the others go along with it - that would be insane unless...... 


I am not sure about the white wash theory- surely if they were trying to do that - they would have said/done nothing as the Smith efit cannot help the mccans.   

However, I now think that this case will never be solved unless one of the parties involved can no longer live with themself and comes forward with clear information and gives a better picture of events that night -( may be it was an abduction/ may be kate had been in contact with many dead people the week before her holiday/ may be the hire car had been driven to turkey before they had it - As the law in turkey is a car must have a body bag capable of transporting a 16 stone body - so dead bodies in boots must be common there) and we will all be surprised but while any polices force PJ and SY have to stumble their way through the fog the group created it can only be an uphill battle.

Rooster checking out.

jeanmonroe wrote:KM BODY LANGUAGE.

Deadwood NEVER said ONCE in the CW programme the 'A' words!

'disappearance, vanished' but NOT 'abducted/abduction'

Did i see Kate's left 'shoulder lift' a few times in 'live' interview?

"And then you will see the body language (leakage), which is called a one-sided shoulder shrug, which is a squelched shoulder shrug, that says that I have absolutely no confidence in what I just said and I was lying".

I'm sure i did see that.

YEP, KM FOUR left shoulder 'lifts' followed by big gulp during and after her first 'answer'!

HUGE, HUGE left shoulder lift, by KM, looks 'involuntary' to me, near end of 'interview'

That will do for me!

Their statements will do for me, I cannot understand why the SY do not appear to be taking any notice of their statements.  Not only their statements, but the book and the mockumentary?

I can just see in the future, criminals giving statements and then deciding further down the line that what they said in the ORIGINAL statements did not happen,
you can just see the police saying oh well we will ignore that statement and start looking into your case afresh.

tiny wrote:Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

She didn't see bundleman, she saw 'night crèche daddy' whose child happened to have similar Pyjamas to Madeleine's....... I think....

riskybuisness wrote:My first post, I used to visit the original forum a lot, hoping for progress, then got so sick of the whole thing I gave up and only look in here every now and again. I have no idea what actually happened to this little girl, but I do think that her parents and co. have tried to cover up the events of that night in a fog of misdirection.  Whether that was to cover bad parenting or worse I have no idea.  

What I do think has not been completely looked at is why all the comings and goings from the dinner table. Has anyone ever said if that was the normal state of play for this group- not just at diner but in the bars the previous nights/ previous trips and home on nights out etc.   What would make young (ish) upwardly mobile professionals need to leave the table every 1/2 - 1hr or so.- If not the norm then that would be strange in itself, if the norm including bars then the to and fro wondering may have had little to do with the checking on children an instead perhaps were for another reason.


2nd thing on my mind was with all the to and fro that was going on in the apartment and routes to it, it must have been like the hall seen out of Risky Business, if any planned abductor (crime gang) was about they would have run a mile before going anywhere near that apartment that night.  So that leaves a chance abduction  or her leaving herself to go look for her missing parents then being snatched or in an accident or an accident and cover up.  

If as most on here seem to think its was the cover up option why would the others go along with it - that would be insane unless...... 


I am not sure about the white wash theory- surely if they were trying to do that - they would have said/done nothing as the Smith efit cannot help the mccans.   

However, I now think that this case will never be solved unless one of the parties involved can no longer live with themself and comes forward with clear information and gives a better picture of events that night -( may be it was an abduction/ may be kate had been in contact with many dead people the week before her holiday/ may be the hire car had been driven to turkey before they had it - As the law in turkey is a car must have a body bag capable of transporting a 16 stone body - so dead bodies in boots must be common there) and we will all be surprised but while any polices force PJ and SY have to stumble their way through the fog the group created it can only be an uphill battle.

It was alluded to in the reconstruction that on 03 May, they were 'following the checking routine they had adopted throughout the holiday'

The Rooster wrote:Rooster checking out.

Have you had enough of the whitewash? It was appalling wasn't it

Sorry if repeating but E Holmes on Sky was live speaking to John Luckman of the Portugal News Algarve newspaper. He was asked to comment on CW and said 2 key things stood out for him.

1. The discrediting of JT sighting. He had a photographer in the area who was present at a walk-through of this sighting.
   Clear that she could not have " identified that man "

 inference, she did not make a mistake. she could not have seen what she claimed.


2. The focus on what detective Amaral said was their key man,,Smithman.  JL said loud and clear to EH that SY have come to the same conclusion as the man who was the lead in the original investigation.

 EH tried to criticise local police for not making enough of local break-ins and burglaries, 6 of which had been i.d'd by SY.
 JL was having none of that, he had asked around and had found nothing to back that up and for sure nothing in the crucial week.

I was expecting a lot more revelation and new leads after all the build up.  But I suppose the one good thing was that it did promote the most  credible sighting which was by an independent witness.  So that can only be a good thing.  And didn't concentrate on random people seen round the resort though they were mentioned.

MoonGoddess wrote:

tiny wrote:Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

She didn't see bundleman, she saw 'night crèche daddy' whose child happened to have similar Pyjamas to Madeleine's....... I think....

thanks,but I am not buying that,because deadwood still has not explained why Gerry and Wilkins didn't see her, from what I can see reading through this thread

MRNOODLES wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!  

GM, 'You just made that up about eliminating night creche man'.

SY, 'Oh yeah, what makes you say that?'

GM, 'Cos we made him up in the first place...... oh shit!'

quite

TellTheTruth wrote:Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
Scotland Yard has turned the inquiry on its head. Establishing that the Jane Tanner sighting was a "red herring" has opened up possibilities that were all but ruled out by previous investigators - not least the man seen with a child at 10pm.
The importance detectives have put on tracking that man down suggests they may have other information about him they haven't shared; perhaps phone records hold the key, as detectives indicated 10 days ago.
The question as to why it has taken six years for the Tanner sighting to be bottomed out and why e-fits of the 10pm suspect, compiled five years ago, have only now been publicised are uncomfortable ones - but are probably best addressed to the Portuguese authorities, who conducted the first investigation.

 The man above is bound to be on twitter, CAN ALL WHO TWEET SEND HIM THE LINK TO CHANNEL 4 NEWS LAST NIGHT WHERE JON SNOW STATED THAT THE E FITS WERE FOUND LYING FOR 5 YEARS IN  PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR FILES, WERE NOT HANDED OVER TO PORTUGUESE POLICE.

 I WILL POST IT HERE. SNOW CLEAR WHERE THOSE E FITS WERE, FOR HOW LONG AND THAT THE MADDIE PIs DID NOTHING WITH THEM.

tiny wrote:

MoonGoddess wrote:

tiny wrote:Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

She didn't see bundleman, she saw 'night crèche daddy' whose child happened to have similar Pyjamas to Madeleine's....... I think....

thanks,but I am not buying that,because deadwood still has not explained why Gerry and Wilkins didn't see her, from what I can see reading through this thread

that was airbrushed out of the 'reconstruction', as was David Payne's visit to 5a @6pm on 03 May....

russiandoll wrote:Sorry if repeating but E Holmes on Sky was live speaking to John Luckman of the Portugal News Algarve newspaper. He was asked to comment on CW and said 2 key things stood out for him.

1. The discrediting of JT sighting. He had a photographer in the area who was present at a walk-through of this sighting.
   Clear that she could not have " identified that man "

 inference, she did not make a mistake. she could not have seen what she claimed.


2. The focus on what detective Amaral said was their key man,,Smithman.  JL said loud and clear to EH that SY have come to the same conclusion as the man who was the lead in the original investigation.

 EH tried to criticise local police for not making enough of local break-ins and burglaries, 6 of which had been i.d'd by SY.
 JL was having none of that, he had asked around and had found nothing to back that up and for sure nothing in the crucial week.

The burglaries were well known at the time, MW had apparently alerted their guests to the burglary problem and yet the patio door was closed but not locked and three defenceless children were left all alone  in that apartment.   

LK thinks she is doing a good job for them by the sound of it but what "right minded" member of the viewing public,  hearing about burglaries being on the increase would think it a good idea to leave the children alone when they went out for their jolly wining and dining and having fun night.

Sorry but I have to say   -  FECK OFF.

ITV reporter now stating Smith sighting dismissed in 2007.

 can we all please politely tell the news channels THAT THIS WAS THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE MAN IN CHARGE ?
  A CAREFUL E MAIL SHOULD BE DRAFTED WITH NO REF TO THE MCCANNS AT ALL.

 JUST A LINK TO A FEW SIGNIFICANT FACTS.

 MAN ON TV.....WHY HAVE PEOPLE ONLY JUST NOW RECALLED THEY WERE IN THE AREA 6 YEARS AGO. WHY ONLY NOW CONTACTING SY?

 Why indeed? I would like to read the almost 200 emails and hear the 300+ calls.