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

CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Page 5 of 22 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by sonic72 on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 1:58

@endgame wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Madeleine McCann: Police 'hunt men in swimming shorts seen near Praia da Luz apartment 24 hours before Maddie vanished'

17 Oct 2013 08:38
 
A British holidaymaker says the two men, thought to be Dutch or German, made him feel uneasy


 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-hunt-men-2461285#ixzz2hyL6PIHS
Thanks candyfloss. I thought your headline was a spoof until I checked the article and found it was real. Wow. That's amazing. Men in swimming shorts at a beach resort. Whatever next? Soon they'll be telling us that these two men were seen on the same beach as some children. That would clearly be conclusive. The fact that they are also foreign can leave no doubt in anyone's mind. Breakthrough! Revelation!
The Smith's sighting, taken from the bbc website:

"The witnesses said the man was white, 20 to 40 years old and of medium build. He had short brown hair, was clean-shaven and of medium height"

The suspects in The Mirror article said: "A British tourist spotted the possible suspects, who are both blonde"

A conflict in hair colours there! Also, the Mirror said the men were seen in the cafe 5mins away from the apartments, it's hardly close is it! So anyone withing 5 mins range is a suspect!?!

"The holidaymaker said the men made him feel uneasy" in what way? Needs more info, the man needs to speak on camera...

Why on earth would he feel uneasy about other people on holiday, even if they were abductors, they were not going to be drawing attention to themselves are they!

Yet more garbage in the news! Pretty much every paper has shown their true colours with all the false reporting on this case.

____________________


sonic72

Posts : 337
Reputation : 64
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Okeydokey on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 2:02

@loopzdaloop wrote:
@Okeydokey wrote:
@mouse wrote:I don't normally agree with Kate Mccann but on this occasion - my experience children can sleep through at this age, and my mother has just said that we all slept though okay at that age. I think it depends on the children and how lucky you are, or I guess, possibly controversial here - what kind of night-time routine you have. I think though as kids start to get a little older - nightmares/waking up happens more.


Going back to Diane Webster(big apology for not keeping up-to-date - I'm so old-school on this) and a big thank you to Daisy for up-dating me. I will certainly look it up as Diane always intrigued me - being the older member of the group, unattached, possibly different ideas in parenting and wasn't, as far as I know, a friend of the Mccanns before the holiday. I'm afraid I only remember her first statement - did it change dramatically then? Because if it did, that is even more interesting - and  one could only then deduce that she might have been let into the loop because of the possible negative outcome for her nearest and dearest.
Mouse... loads of children experience sleeping difficulties at that age!  And the proof is of course that the Police observed a star chart for Madeleine in her own home in the UK designed to discourage her from trying to get into her parents' bed during the night (I think a photo is in the Police files)  - she was clearly a child who woke during the night and wanted to go into her parents' bed for comfort. Perfectly natural. But the McCanns were equally clearly trying to condition her out of that behaviour. 
Disagree with the last comment.
The mccanns were clearly NOT trying to condition her out of her behaviour as a behaviour chart is not
Magic, it requires interaction and consistancy
Of implementation. This is mutually exclusive
To neglecting children night after night. Sending people in and out of the building for 'checks' (allegedly) is also not conducive
To helping a child.

To the new poster, please look up topics with relation to Mrs Fenn or 'the last photo' using the search buttton to see speculation as to the last time she was seen alive. Discussion on creche records is also relevant.

(Apologise for typos am on mobile)
Well you can amend "trying to" to "wished to" - I wouldn't have a problem with that.  I can well imagine they were being quite disciplined about things at home but when it came to a holiday - they just wanted to relax.

I've been here before so am up to speed with a lot of the arguments about timing, Mrs Fenn and the last photo  (and the last photo is the least of our worries).

Can someone remind - has the honest Mrs Fenn now passed away?

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by sonic72 on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 2:11

If we were to believe their abduction BS, surely the parents would show sign of concern about what actually might be happening to their daughter.

They always say they believe they can find her alive, but never show any concern for her welfare.

They want to give people 'hope' that she will be found alive because a dead Maddy cannot bring money into the fund, and gods know where else all the money pulled in from the Maddy fiasco goes!

They show no concern for her welfare because she is no longer with us.

____________________


sonic72

Posts : 337
Reputation : 64
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by nobodythereeither on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 2:12

@Okeydokey wrote:
Can someone remind - has the honest Mrs Fenn now passed away?
Yes.

nobodythereeither

Posts : 273
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Okeydokey on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 2:20

@sonic72 wrote:If we were to believe their abduction BS, surely the parents would show sign of concern about what actually might be happening to their daughter.

They always say they believe they can find her alive, but never show any concern for her welfare.

They want to give people 'hope' that she will be found alive because a dead Maddy cannot bring money into the fund, and gods know where else all the money pulled in from the Maddy fiasco goes!

They show no concern for her welfare because she is no longer with us.
True. I'd like to know as well when Jane Tanner told other Tapas 9 members (soon - minutes - after the alleged "abduction") they didn't all immediately sprint in that direction, banging on vans calling out her name...knocking on doors...looking in ditches...why have we never heard such descriptions after JT told the other Tapas 9 people about what she had seen (but NOT she says, the McCanns!!!)

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Woburn_exile on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 2:53

@MoonGoddess wrote:
@Jaci wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@tasprin wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.
I agree to the doctors do cover  up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that unless all the children were sedated and if they were then i can see why a cover up occurred,yep Gerry and kate have got them over a barrel if this is the case.
Way, way back - don't I remember something about them saying that some of this group (not the Mccanns) had been away on holiday together before. Perhaps they had sedated/left their kids on this prev. holiday with no incidents and thought that this was the way to go on this holiday with the Mccanns -  however this time it went wrong....for what ever reason...Maddie woke sedated, felt dizzy and tripped (as you can do when you awake after taking a sleeping pill or sedation) or she had a reaction to it, or neither of these but just woke up and something else happenend...but because they'd all sedated their kiddie....Perhaps they felt a cover-up was necessary as they wouldn't want the other kids tested for medication - being Doctors....Just thinking aloud.
Yes if other members of the group were doing it they may have been sympathetic to their plight - justifying by saying 'We've all done it - why should they suffer any more'? - but at the same time worried about their own position.
And if it wasn't the Mccans Idea to sedate/leave, and if they weren't the supplier of the sedative/had the idea to leave.....Guilt all round from the others, and more significant guilt from particular members of the party.

Moongoddess - it might have been that article I can't remember...
Thank you for accepting me :) Another long time lurker. I might have made a previous account here but not too sure, I'm lousy at keeping track of things. Was posting on UK Justice Forum but it's impossible to have a decent conversation there without someone jumping on it!

Sorry, back to the topic...I could be reading this wrong but something Fiona said in her statement made me wonder if the McCann's might be sedating their children on (all) holidays but not when at home (because of Madeleine's sleeping chart on the fridge). Fiona says that on the Majorca holiday when Madeleine was only two years old and the twins six months old they slept right through the night: 

Reply
'We had a hideous time with our eldest that holiday, because she didn't sleep a wink for about two weeks, every night, so we were generally pacing around, erm, on the outside of the villa'. 

1485
Yeah'.

Reply
'At silly hours of the morning'.

1485
'And was their children'.

Reply
 'Very good'.
 
 1485
 'To sleep on time'' 
 
 Reply
 'Absolutely, they were like model children'. 
 
 1485
 'Sleeping through'' 
 
 Reply
 'Sleeping through, much to our distaste, because ours weren't. But, yeah, I mean, they, they'd always had a really good routine and Sean and Amelie at that point were incredibly, erm, you know, I think they were sleeping through actually and I think even were sleeping past when everyone else's kids were getting up, they were sort of model babies'.
hi so if that was Sept 2005 ....... trying to work out how old the twins were then?
Oh fer forkin flippin forkbags sake take on board that it is standard practice for British Doctors to give their children drugs to help them stay asleep whilst they go out on the razz with their friends. This is just one of hundreds rhat needs to be investigated , thats all.

Woburn_exile

Posts : 239
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by annemab on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 8:24

Just a short reply to the poster who posted just after me, can't use quotes on my phone sorry - yes the NHS do recommend a modified form of crying it out for babies from 8 weeks old. The health visitor tried to encourage me to do thus but soon gave up!

I hear what you're saying about having some understanding of child batteries after going through the exhaustion of colic - me too! The 3-4 tantrums can also be wearing - probably much worse if you have littler ones too.

I overheard some young mums talking about the case in our local soft play centre yesterday. One was saying lots of things don't make sense, and the others were telling her about the dogs, DNA etc. I think CW has got people talking but it's not doing the MCs any good

annemab

Posts : 34
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Guest on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 8:34

Whether Madeleine was a good sleeper or not, she was in a strange bed with all the excitement a holiday brings.

I don't know any child of any age who sleeps as well on holiday as they do at home.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Smokeandmirrors on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 8:36

@Okeydokey wrote:
@sonic72 wrote:If we were to believe their abduction BS, surely the parents would show sign of concern about what actually might be happening to their daughter.

They always say they believe they can find her alive, but never show any concern for her welfare.

They want to give people 'hope' that she will be found alive because a dead Maddy cannot bring money into the fund, and gods know where else all the money pulled in from the Maddy fiasco goes!

They show no concern for her welfare because she is no longer with us.
True. I'd like to know as well when Jane Tanner told other Tapas 9 members (soon - minutes - after the alleged "abduction") they didn't all immediately sprint in that direction, banging on vans calling out her name...knocking on doors...looking in ditches...why have we never heard such descriptions after JT told the other Tapas 9 people about what she had seen (but NOT she says, the McCanns!!!)
This is so pertinent, in the immediate moments after the alleged abduction their "search" was fleeting and then they set about phoning people in England FFS, what the hell could they do from another country? And why would parents waste a moment of banging on doors, checking vehicles and so on, when your tiny infant daughter could theoretically be close by?

It always really p!$$ed me off when Kate sat indoor "keeping vigil" instead of looking, and when she did eventually get off her arse in the morning for an hour to look, complained everyone else had gone off after searching the whole night through. She was so thoroughly unappreciative of everyones help, when NO-ONE else had the slightest obligation to help her. Everything the McCanns have had is a privilege, whereas they DEMAND everything as an ENTITLEMENT.

I think this is one of the main things people find repulsive about them.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by StraightThinking on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 8:48

Forget the timelines published in the media, the table was vacated at approx 21.40

And according to several witness statements, the search for Maddie was underway before 21.30, long before the alarm is said to have been raised

One particular witness says he heard she was missing at 21.20, which tallies which other accounts citing the period 21.15-21.30

That makes the window of opportunity for an abductor much smaller than NSY's estimate of 21.15-22.00, more like 21.15-21.20 at the most

However the 21.15-22.00 window seems to been accepted and agreed by all concerned

If NSY can now demonstate the absence of M at 21.20, the window of opportunity for an abductor is almost closed

____________________


StraightThinking

Posts : 180
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Guest on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 10:05

Jerry Lawton@JerryLawton 1h
Ben Needham's family appeal for Madeleine #McCann style investigation to help find him http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/345795/Don-t-forget-Ben-Missing-tot-s-family-appeal-for-Maddie-style-inquiry …

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by MoonGoddess on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 10:18

@concerneduser wrote:

I'm new to this forum and don't know all the facts, when was the last public confirmed sighting of young Maddie?
I believe I am right in thinking that Mr Amaral [initial lead investigator in Portugal] says it is @5.30 and that was the crèche worker.

____________________
Not to help justice in her need would be an impiety ~Plato~

MoonGoddess

Posts : 282
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by mouse on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 10:27

@Woburn_exile wrote:
@MoonGoddess wrote:
@Jaci wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@tasprin wrote:
@mouse wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@tasprin wrote:What ever time the abduction happened - 9.15 or 10.00 - there is still the question of sedation. Even the McCanns say the children were sedated but how did an abductor sedate three children without waking them? Oral or intravenous sedation would have woken them and chloroform would have left an unmistakable smell.
Sedation could very well be the reason for collusion. Fear of the consequences could have deterred them from bringing the little girl to a hospital. If she suffered a fatal injury whilst under the influence of sedatives one or more of them may have attempted to resuscitate her. It is not unknown for doctors to cover up for each other.
I agree to the doctors do cover  up for each other,but we are talking about a 3yr old little girl, what sort of people are these tapas 7 to do a thing like that unless all the children were sedated and if they were then i can see why a cover up occurred,yep Gerry and kate have got them over a barrel if this is the case.
Way, way back - don't I remember something about them saying that some of this group (not the Mccanns) had been away on holiday together before. Perhaps they had sedated/left their kids on this prev. holiday with no incidents and thought that this was the way to go on this holiday with the Mccanns -  however this time it went wrong....for what ever reason...Maddie woke sedated, felt dizzy and tripped (as you can do when you awake after taking a sleeping pill or sedation) or she had a reaction to it, or neither of these but just woke up and something else happenend...but because they'd all sedated their kiddie....Perhaps they felt a cover-up was necessary as they wouldn't want the other kids tested for medication - being Doctors....Just thinking aloud.
Yes if other members of the group were doing it they may have been sympathetic to their plight - justifying by saying 'We've all done it - why should they suffer any more'? - but at the same time worried about their own position.
And if it wasn't the Mccans Idea to sedate/leave, and if they weren't the supplier of the sedative/had the idea to leave.....Guilt all round from the others, and more significant guilt from particular members of the party.

Moongoddess - it might have been that article I can't remember...
Thank you for accepting me :) Another long time lurker. I might have made a previous account here but not too sure, I'm lousy at keeping track of things. Was posting on UK Justice Forum but it's impossible to have a decent conversation there without someone jumping on it!

Sorry, back to the topic...I could be reading this wrong but something Fiona said in her statement made me wonder if the McCann's might be sedating their children on (all) holidays but not when at home (because of Madeleine's sleeping chart on the fridge). Fiona says that on the Majorca holiday when Madeleine was only two years old and the twins six months old they slept right through the night: 

Reply
'We had a hideous time with our eldest that holiday, because she didn't sleep a wink for about two weeks, every night, so we were generally pacing around, erm, on the outside of the villa'. 

1485
Yeah'.

Reply
'At silly hours of the morning'.

1485
'And was their children'.

Reply
 'Very good'.
 
 1485
 'To sleep on time'' 
 
 Reply
 'Absolutely, they were like model children'. 
 
 1485
 'Sleeping through'' 
 
 Reply
 'Sleeping through, much to our distaste, because ours weren't. But, yeah, I mean, they, they'd always had a really good routine and Sean and Amelie at that point were incredibly, erm, you know, I think they were sleeping through actually and I think even were sleeping past when everyone else's kids were getting up, they were sort of model babies'.
hi so if that was Sept 2005 ....... trying to work out how old the twins were then?
Oh fer forkin flippin forkbags sake take on board that it is standard practice for British Doctors to give their children drugs to help them stay asleep whilst they go out on the razz with their friends. This is just one of hundreds rhat needs to be investigated , thats all.
....but this wasn't a discussion about if we believed they sedated - this originally, came out of a discussion about why the Tapas group all kept a pact of silence - an argument was put that it was unbelievable for a group of this many people to know about what happened and not say anything. Sedation on a prev. holiday, that continued on this holiday was perhaps one reason....The possibility of losing their kids and careers, and possible charge being brought might have felt their only way at the time. Not to say that was correct of course.

mouse

Posts : 327
Reputation : 42
Join date : 2013-10-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***DISCUSSION****

Post by Monty Heck on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 12:09

@Jaci wrote:
@MoonGoddess wrote:
Hello MoonGoddess hi 
Sorry, I forgot to post the link. I think Fiona said Madeleine was two years old and the twins were 6 months old

EDIT. Gave wrong link first time. Here's the right one lol

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Added the quote now that I've found it: 
 Reply
 'Well, again, I mean, I look back to Majorca and the twins were, what, only six months old and Madeleine, what, two, and still they, they were a slick machine, you know, a well oiled machine, the way they did everything routine, they were very much like I am with, and Dave, with our kids, very much operate by routine and, you know, bedtime routines and lunchtime routines, but they worked very hard and worked very hard together, erm, and made it look very easy and that's how it always came across with them, it never, it never seemed arduous or hard'.
In complete contrast to what various family members had to say about flying down to help K with the children when G was at work, as she was unable to cope with them all on her own.  Yet they go on holiday, that nemesis of routine for the majority of parents, and they not only cope but are admired as a slick machine?

Edited to add, and also in stark contrast to their extended stay in Portugal, when suddenlly the twins stopped being model children and bedtimes became difficult, to the point that the McCs were impressed when T & S Cameron were able to get them off to sleep.  FPs comments above and in her statement about checking the twins' breathing during the night of 3/4 May seem to warrant further investigation, putting it mildly.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by nobodythereeither on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 12:19

Please would it be possible to rename the Crimewatch threads to add Thread One and Thread Two or something?

Or to add an initial post to this thread referring to the original thread?

I got a message from my email link to say "no posts exist for this topic", and then when I found this thread I thought all the previous posts had been deleted for some reason.

I'm probably extremely dim, but it took me some time to find the initial thread (with the same name) some distance down the page ....

I think it would be helpful for newbies also to indicate that there are now two threads about Crimewatch.

Thanks!

nobodythereeither

Posts : 273
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by MoonGoddess on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 12:22

@nobodythereeither wrote:Please would it be possible to rename the Crimewatch threads to add Thread One and Thread Two or something?

Or to add an initial post to this thread referring to the original thread?

I got a message from my email link to say "no posts exist for this topic", and then when I found this thread I thought all the previous posts had been deleted for some reason.

I'm probably extremely dim, but it took me some time to find the initial thread (with the same name) some distance down the page ....

I think it would be helpful for newbies also to indicate that there are now two threads about Crimewatch.

Thanks!
and there was me thinking I was "extremely dim" spin I got the same message "no posts exist" ... am still confused as to whether there are two threads going? is the first 1 closed?

ADMIN NOTE:  Yes, good points, the two threads have now been renamed 'Part 1' and 'Part 2'. Please be patient if a few things are not quite up to speed as usual, as we try to cope with dozens of new members, dozens of new threads and hundreds of new posts being added daily.

____________________
Not to help justice in her need would be an impiety ~Plato~

MoonGoddess

Posts : 282
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by nobodythereeither on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 12:27

@MoonGoddess wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:Please would it be possible to rename the Crimewatch threads to add Thread One and Thread Two or something?

Or to add an initial post to this thread referring to the original thread?

I got a message from my email link to say "no posts exist for this topic", and then when I found this thread I thought all the previous posts had been deleted for some reason.

I'm probably extremely dim, but it took me some time to find the initial thread (with the same name) some distance down the page ....

I think it would be helpful for newbies also to indicate that there are now two threads about Crimewatch.

Thanks!
and there was me thinking I was "extremely dim" spin I got the same message "no posts exist" ... am still confused as to whether there are two threads going? is the first 1 closed?
Thank God it's not just me!

It looks like admin (or someone) closed the original thread after 100 pages, although the first few pages of this thread were still on the original thread last night.

If we're both confused, probably others are as well (though I'm more concerned that newcomers to the site may miss the posts on the original thread altogether. If this thread is labelled Thread Two or something, at least it will be obvious that there's a Thread One somewhere!!!).

nobodythereeither

Posts : 273
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Cheshire Cat on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:00

I believe, like Pat Brown, that the Smith sighting has been focused on by SY for it to be dismissed either in the same way as 'bundle man' (i.e. a mystery tourist comes forward) or they will claim that this was the real abductor. Given Mr Smiths statement, it may be risky to continue to claim that this man was the actual abductor because of the element of doubt that hangs over the sighting i.e. Mr Smith identifying the man as Gerry. Better to dismiss this sighting altogether. But of course now there is no abductor! This would allow SY to confirm their belief that the abduction was pre-planned by stating Maddie was whisked off by a waiting car.

I feel uneasy about this prospect because this scenario could be used to undermine Goncalo Amaral: i.e. really bring it out into the open that Mr Smith identified the man as Gerry but then immediately shoot it down by having a mystery tourist step foward and identify himself as 'Smith Man'. My money is on this happening within the next two weeks!

Cheshire Cat
Madeleine Foundation

Posts : 660
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2010-08-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Guest on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:11

When threads reach 100 pages they automatically lock themselves and a new thread opens.  It's a forumotion thing, and nothing to do with admin.  Always check that the thread you are looking for and the forum has 100 pages, then there will be a new one with the same title.  Hope that explains.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by ShuBob on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:14

@Cheshire Cat wrote:I believe, like Pat Brown, that the Smith sighting has been focused on by SY for it to be dismissed either in the same way as 'bundle man' (i.e. a mystery tourist comes forward) or they will claim that this was the real abductor. Given Mr Smiths statement, it may be risky to continue to claim that this man was the actual abductor because of the element of doubt that hangs over the sighting i.e. Mr Smith identifying the man as Gerry. Better to dismiss this sighting altogether. But of course now there is no abductor! This would allow SY to confirm their belief that the abduction was pre-planned by stating Maddie was whisked off by a waiting car.

I feel uneasy about this prospect because this scenario could be used to undermine Goncalo Amaral: i.e. really bring it out into the open that Mr Smith identified the man as Gerry but then immediately shoot it down by having a mystery tourist step foward and identify himself as 'Smith Man'. My money is on this happening within the next two weeks!
But the fact remains: at the time Amaral wrote the book the PJ theory was that Maddie died accidentally and there was simulation of an abduction. Nothing that comes out now can change that. I would imagine they'll need to bring another case if they want to ban the book and/or do Amaral for libel.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by ShuBob on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:16

candyfloss wrote:When threads reach 100 pages they automatically lock themselves and a new thread opens.  It's a forumotion thing, and nothing to do with admin.  Always check that the thread you are looking for and the forum has 100 pages, then there will be a new one with the same title.  Hope that explains.
Thanks Candy.

I think the issue is that the threads don't automatically lock after 100 pages like they should. They go on for a bit longer before they lock.

ShuBob

Posts : 1893
Reputation : 57
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Guest on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:18

Yes, that's definitely the case, the first one got to at least 108 before it was locked.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by Guest on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:22

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, that's definitely the case, the first one got to at least 108 before it was locked.
Yes it's weird sometimes they lock on 100 and sometimes a little after.  But the new thread is also started on the 101st page, as Page 1, ie leaving the old thread with just 100 pages.  Don't know the reason for it though.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by MoonGoddess on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:22

Thank You CF for the explanation on the 2 CW thread issue

____________________
Not to help justice in her need would be an impiety ~Plato~

MoonGoddess

Posts : 282
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 2 DISCUSSION**** including CRIMEWATCH UPDATE (for what it was worth)

Post by russiandoll on Fri 18 Oct 2013 - 13:24

Cheshire Cat....understand your cynicism, but on what grounds do you base it? Why would AR want to shaft GA? The Mcs have a motive, what would be his?

Also, why have 2 mystery men involved, 1= not bundleman  2. innocent parent or abductor who will not be found.[ Smithman]

 I do get the point that with JT man binned another needs to be the focus or fake focus if your cynicism proves well-founded, but why draw attention to Smith sighting  instead of ignore it and say that another innocent explanation has been found and just go with the theory that in the new window which is created someone took Maddie....
by giving the Smith sighting credence it is clear they believe in a certain timeframe Maddie went from OC to elsewhere.... so why not ignore Smith and just go with the taken in a car theory, but by someone else to somewhere else? They are going to have to narrow down the time due to the timeline whoever this mystery man will be ?


 I just don't see where Smith sighting  needs to come into it to fabricate an alternative scenario to Tannerman...the people so doing are clearly devious, or am I missing something not seeing the wood for the trees due to the volume of reading I have been doing?  I still cant see how they can make a case for a stranger in the circumstances and time frame getting in and out of 5a.

 Also it is clear that the group have lied and I don't know how all this can be reconciled with stranger abduction as claimed.

 just wondering why some people are convinced this is a massive cover up .

____________________



             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

Page 5 of 22 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 ... 22  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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