Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

russiandoll wrote:  iirc the media claimed the tennis court the last photo, the police did  not mention any photos at all? will re watch CW later

margaret wrote:

russiandoll wrote:will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

 I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

 2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.

I agree, the alarm had been raised by then and the tapas men were out searching.

It's a fact the Smiths sighting HAS to be ruled out, if that man doesn't come forward then SY have their answer.....

Not only did SY manage to find Tanners made up bundleman   but Gerry had to go on primetime TV and ask for help to trace a man he knows the Smiths identified as HIM.

Interesting! 

I still maintain if this was going to be a whitewash it would have not got to this stage.  But this week SY have rubbished the timelines, told us the last photo was a lie, mentioned they are looking into all mobile activity so l think this is going in the right direction.

Angelique wrote:

garfy wrote:any one know if  this  is correct




Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ inspector and author of the book 'Maddie - The Truth of the Lie', says the new facts in the case are "publicity stunt" the parents of the missing girl.

http://videos.sapo.pt/OBMLIZBOZbHKZgtNyrBT

garfy

Do you know if there is an English translation of this interview with Goncalo Amaral ?

petesdog wrote:I don't often post on here, but read the forum daily and have followed the case for a number of years.  Obviously like most people I was hoping for a lot more from CW last night.  
Immediately afterwards I was furious but feel more optimistic having had chance to re-watch and digest.

If we look at the possible scenarios we have
1)  SY are being a bit thick and can't piece together the evidence to its obvious conclusion.  This cannot be the case.
2)  Its a whitewash.  This was my immediate reaction last night, however unlike other whitewashes that have gone before, this case has tens of thousands of official police files, in the public domain for all to read.   Files which again point to an obvious conclusion.  This cannot be the case.  SURELY they can't be contemplating a cover up with all that information in the public domain?    Could they? 
3)  It's not going to be a cover up and SY are genuinely looking for additional information that would secure a conviction.  Personally I think this is the likely agenda. 

Other random musings from CW :

It wasn't a reconstruction. They didn't even show the efit man in situ.  

Readwoods language - dismissed JT sighting which means "we're allowed to let the clock run forward from 9.15pm"  allowed?  Surely as an investigator you would consider all possibilities?  'allowed' as in able to credibly challenge the accepted timeline?   Whose timeline?  Well, its only the McCanns that had stuck rigidly to that timeline.  PJ didn't.  (and public opinion doesn't dictate the direction of investigation). Followed by commentators "this was an enormous discovery for the team" - this assumes the investigating team genuinely believed the JT timeline.  Which of course they couldn't have, given the info in the files.  But the TV presenters were "just doing their job" nothing to be read into what they said. 

When discussing the 'significance' of the two new images Readwood states "this could be the man who took Madeleine, but very importantly there could be an innocent explanation"  (with added emphasis on the the "but very importantly")   Why is an innocent explanation very important.  If you re-watch this part approx 23 mins in, it's almost like Readwood wants an innocent explanation found.  Not sure why.

The blond haired men, charity collectors was, I felt, all a bit rushed - almost glossed over.  Almost like they didn't believe they were of significance. 

At 26:03, in context of how important these men were RW "the Madeleine McCann case DOES have, on ONE reading of the evidence have all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction"  Again emphasis on the ONE, almost implying there is and they are considering other scenarios, although doesn't seem overly convinced of the burgalry scenario which he then goes onto to talk about.  

At 30:01 in discussing the blond men with Kirsty "There were a number of incidents on either.." (stops himself) and corrects to say "on the day Madeleine went missing and the days leading up to ..."  Either?  Either days?  Is he thinking of two specific days?  

Gerry on the sofa "I think we're feeling hopefully and optimistic" - Think?  Usual Gerry language tying himself in knots. 

Kate "as long as we get the result that we need"  and ends with "unlocking the case" (keys?)

It's a language analysts dream come true

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Hicks wrote:

margaret wrote:

russiandoll wrote:will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

 I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

 2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.

I agree, the alarm had been raised by then and the tapas men were out searching.

It's a fact the Smiths sighting HAS to be ruled out, if that man doesn't come forward then SY have their answer.....

Not only did SY manage to find Tanners made up bundleman   but Gerry had to go on primetime TV and ask for help to trace a man he knows the Smiths identified as HIM.

Interesting! 

I still maintain if this was going to be a whitewash it would have not got to this stage.  But this week SY have rubbished the timelines, told us the last photo was a lie, mentioned they are looking into all mobile activity so l think this is going in the right direction.

Exactly margaret!  AR said in last nights appeal ( regarding the man walking towards the beach with the child)" if this was you please have the courage to come forward".I can't remember the exact words after but along the lines of,' we need to eliminate this man if innocent'. The Smith sighting is the ONLY bit of evidence that -potentially- makes a direct connection to the McCann's and foul play.
It must be the hope of SY that someone will come forward who saw the man after the Smiths and can say in all certainty who that man was.

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared.

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared.

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared.

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

Interesting that the female witness can state with certainty that JT nor GM,JW were not in the road at 9.15. JT didn't see anyone and SY know it, they have played a blinder by concocting a story in order to dismiss it.

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view.  These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

You are correct bobbin, it was the 1st of May. This article had confused me! See what you make of it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared.

Yes, confusing...but I think it's safer to go by the statements which show Mrs. Fenn worrying on 1st May, and reckoning that the Newspaper has got the dates wrong.  

Interesting that the female witness can state with certainty that JT nor GM,JW were not in the road at 9.15. JT didn't see anyone and SY know it, they have played a blinder by concocting a story in order to dismiss it.

russiandoll wrote:and we need to accept uncritically that mistaken man had one set of clothes on holiday and his child one pair of pjs.

 How in hell could he recall what he and his child wore at a specific time, on a specific day, YEARS AGO?

 and accept that JT could see the detail she claimed.

 which bizarrely matched a description of what an abducted child would be carried away in soon afterwards!

Nina wrote:And was this a one way journey, or was it part of a return journey, one with child, one without?

Lance De Boils wrote:Some great posts on this thread.

Last night I was stunned and bewildered.

But now, 24 hours later, I can see more clearly.

This is an appeal for more witnesses to come forward and say where and when they saw the Smiths' man.

What was he doing? And, of course, do you recognise him?

This man must have gone somewhere. He could have been spotted elsewhere before or after, with or without a child. Someone else must have seen him, surely?

Maybe SY already know at least some of that info. But Smiths' word isn't enough. The need more witnesses.

endgame wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory".  The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Redwood does not have to make ridiculous unfounded statements about planned abductions. OK Andy you're convinced it's an abduction but you have have no idea how, when or who, no evidence and yet you're able to state that it has hallmarks. What are they? You mean any planned abduction would have the abductor wandering half way round Praia da Luz with his prey past two car parks where the co-conspirators could have easily parked the getaway car and heading off into nowhere. That is all you actually think you know. I don't see how those are hallmarks of anything.

As I say he doesn't have to trot out this c**p. It's only purpose is to reinforce the idea of abduction.

How is expanding the window of opportunity, pointing the finger at a suspect and claiming that everything adds up to a planned abduction "breaking the theory"? Removing Jane Tanner may make her look stupid but it opens up the possibilities of abduction rather than closes them down. He has in one move taken away the it couldn't have happened because there were only 1m 20 secs free argument.