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

Harrowed not narrowed. Grrr predictive text!

Anyone interested can watch CW here: http://www.findmadeleine.com/home.html and don't forget to put a little something in the collection box afterwards

intrigued89 wrote:One question here that continues to bother me (and I am genuinely not asking this to derail the thread). I am 99% convinced of the McCann's guilt, but there is one small nag. If someone can explain this to me I am completely sold...

If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

I think I can give an answer Intrigued.  The party consisted of 6 NHS doctors, all high achievers, who had spent many years reaching their professional and social standing. They were also parents of young children, all of whom were at risk that night.  If one of the children died because of their 'collective' decision to leave the children unattended, they would all have been charged with neglect/child endangerment.  Switching the blame from the parents to the abductor, absolved them too! And with it the danger of all 6 of them being struck off.  


No doubt they all pushed forward the 'responsible parenting' argument to everyone they knew of influence.  It seemed to me they were more concerned with covering the neglect issue than the finding of the child that night.  They sat and wrote a timeline on the cover of Maddie's book. Basically, their story was, the children would have been perfectly fine being left home alone had it not been for a random child snatcher being in the vicinity at that time.  


All of them had a lot to lose Intrigued and in at least two interviews I have seen Gerry remind his holiday chums that it was a collective decision.  The secret meeting of the tapas gang at that hotel in November 2007 to corroborate their stories rather adds to the idea of a 'pact'.  I may be over optimistic here, but I have a feeling that the 'pact' may have broken down.  We have had announcements of major developments from both SY and the PJ in recent weeks, and the PJ are looking for a body. 


Of the 2,400 calls received following the Crimewatch program, how many of them were 'suppressed' witnesses or people with evidence that the McCanns didn't want passing on.  We have seen the way the McCanns have run their 'suppressing' campaign for the past 6.5 years, that is, we have seen the 'public' face of the tactics used by the 'Fund' to protect the parents, we have not as yet seen how they silence people behind the scenes.

Cristobell wrote:

intrigued89 wrote:One question here that continues to bother me (and I am genuinely not asking this to derail the thread). I am 99% convinced of the McCann's guilt, but there is one small nag. If someone can explain this to me I am completely sold...

If the version of events widely believed by posters on here and other sites is true (that the McCann's are in some way responsible for Madeleine's death and that the T7 were aware of this and helped them cover it up), my question is why? Why would the T7 risk their careers and livelihoods to protect their friends' negligence?


It is the one thing that doesn't make sense to me and I am yet to hear a rational explanation. The cadaver, the 48 questions, the lack of coherence in the relative stories all points in one direction. I have even come round to dismiss the 'why do they still keep going on tv if they are guilty' line of thought, so for me this is the one remaining question and it remains an important one. 

I hope someone can help me out with this one...

I think I can give an answer Intrigued.  The party consisted of 6 NHS doctors, all high achievers, who had spent many years reaching their professional and social standing. They were also parents of young children, all of whom were at risk that night.  If one of the children died because of their 'collective' decision to leave the children unattended, they would all have been charged with neglect/child endangerment.  Switching the blame from the parents to the abductor, absolved them too! And with it the danger of all 6 of them being struck off.  


No doubt they all pushed forward the 'responsible parenting' argument to everyone they knew of influence.  It seemed to me they were more concerned with covering the neglect issue than the finding of the child that night.  They sat and wrote a timeline on the cover of Maddie's book. Basically, their story was, the children would have been perfectly fine being left home alone had it not been for a random child snatcher being in the vicinity at that time.  


All of them had a lot to lose Intrigued and in at least two interviews I have seen Gerry remind his holiday chums that it was a collective decision.  The secret meeting of the tapas gang at that hotel in November 2007 to corroborate their stories rather adds to the idea of a 'pact'.  I may be over optimistic here, but I have a feeling that the 'pact' may have broken down.  We have had announcements of major developments from both SY and the PJ in recent weeks, and the PJ are looking for a body. 


Of the 2,400 calls received following the Crimewatch program, how many of them were 'suppressed' witnesses or people with evidence that the McCanns didn't want passing on.  We have seen the way the McCanns have run their 'suppressing' campaign for the past 6.5 years, that is, we have seen the 'public' face of the tactics used by the 'Fund' to protect the parents, we have not as yet seen how they silence people behind the scenes.

I've sometimes wondered this as well. Neglecting children will not lead to being "struck off", you only have to look at the number of alcoholic Doctors to figure that one but covering up a death is an imprisonable offence and that very definitely warrants the BMC extreme action. There was at least one of the couples who had a mobile spycam with them which may be seen as a form of remote babysitting, not totally sure on the social care viewpoints. So why did they all automatically move into secrecy pacts and abduction protagonists. Where were the Gasper family when all of this was going on? There is something in this grouping of people that is very very very wrong. All the Tapas crew have children, probably some of them approaching their teenage years when young people start to question their parents and their upbringing. With the information age now firmly entrenched as part of daily life they are not all going to be able to remain silent. It only takes one to spill the beans as it were, IMHO

juliet wrote:Thanks Woofer. So then it would not necessarily have been a complete shock on CW. on the other hand the pair have looked gaunt and narrowed since about May....KM looks very different from the made up glamour queen she has seemed in many interviews. One in particular she was wearing a white crochet type top. Sian on BBC asked about the children being upset - why didn't you come incident. KM looked absolute daggers at Sian. GM had to answer while KM kept glaring. Quite unsettling.

Personally I don`t think it was a shock because they knew that SY had the Oakley file - in fact they should have had it from May 2011 when the `review` commenced (but perhaps they weren`t given all of it) as SY said they were bringing together all the information from PJ, Leicester police and the Private Investigators.  We know they had the Metodo3 files and obviously Dave Edgar`s files but not sure if they got the Oakley files originally. Perhaps someone else knows.

Apologies Kate look mortified particularly at the beginning. She wasn't her usual cool cookie in front of the cameras, plus she is looking a little haggard from all the pressure. Her jerky head movements during the interview probably didn't go down too well with the SY psychologists. It's a bit like the dog evidence - just not enough on its own.

There have so many things in the past 6.5 years, which weren't enough on their own. But all of those in combination ... flattening!

Châtelaine wrote:There have so many things in the past 6.5 years, which weren't enough on their own. But all of those in combination ... flattening!

Very true, there are many many adverse inferences but probably not  enough for a criminal court to convict comfortably. There needs to be that knock out blow....

Like solid evidence? Finding her little body?
Cannot bear the thought of it, but it really would be very "helpful" ...

Châtelaine wrote:Like solid evidence? Finding her little body?
Cannot bear the thought of it, but it really would be very "helpful" ...

They need her body - I doubt the McCanns will ever be convicted without a body unless they've slipped up somewhere else - which is possible when you've spun yourself out of a hole while continuing to dig it. I would like to think the cops are all over them like a rash - they should be. CW was very interesting viewing (particularly in light of the ST revelations) and the seemingly loaded language used by Redwood - they appear to be on the slow cooker with the heat up pretty high. Now that the Portuguese cops have reopened the case (they are working towards a result) and the huge implications for the libel trial from the withholding of significant evidence, it does appear that hole is now very deep. The next few weeks should be very revealing. We should know for sure if it's a whitewash or if justice is going to be served.

Sociopathic_Gerry wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Like solid evidence? Finding her little body?
Cannot bear the thought of it, but it really would be very "helpful" ...

They need her body - I doubt the McCanns will ever be convicted without a body unless they've slipped up somewhere else - which is possible when you've spun yourself out of a hole while continuing to dig it. I would like to think the cops are all over them like a rash - they should be. CW was very interesting viewing (particularly in light of the ST revelations) and the seemingly loaded language used by Redwood - they appear to be on the slow cooker with the heat up pretty high. Now that the Portuguese cops have reopened the case (they are working towards a result) and the huge implications for the libel trial from the withholding of significant evidence, it does appear that hole is now very deep. The next few weeks should be very revealing. We should know for sure if it's a whitewash or if justice is going to be served.

The McCanns may be counting on escaping justice because Madeleine's remains have not been found, but they should be aware there have been a number of successful prosections for murder in the absence of a body.

As for them slipping up 'somewhere else', they slip up everytime they open their mouths and I have no doubt that if required to mount a defence in a criminal court of law, they will convict themselves and others.

Although, given that the McCanns are habitual liars, we may never know the exact truth, I am convinced there will be no whitewash in this case and they will brought to account in the not too distant future.  

In the meantime, the press are enjoying themselves at the McCanns' expense and are settling old scores in the process.

ultimaThule wrote:
In the meantime, the press are enjoying themselves at the McCanns' expense and are settling old scores in the process.

I think you are spot on with that. The ST article ended with a question, so with luck will continue in the next edition.

ultimaThule wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I have watched the interview with KY again and I would bet that the couple learnt of the revelation about Smithman not too long before that programme was broadcast. Gerry looked and sounded as if the stuffing had been knocked out of him.

I read somewhere they didn't get to see the 'reconstruction' until c5pm on the day it was aired.

I'd put money on them having no idea it would be so damning and I suspect all they'd seen prior to their first viewing was clips of the 'happy family holiday' bolleux, which we had to endure in the interests of establishing the all-important timeline, and this would have appealed to their vanity and gained their agreement to appear live. 

It's now clear to me why we also had to endure those CW trailers every 5 minutes as the publicity surrounding their 'live' appearance left them with no way to get out of participating in the show.  

I also suspect they had in mind standing shoulder to shoulder with AR instead of, effectively, being put in isolation for their cosy live chat with Kirsty and that would have come as another shock to them.

All in all, AR has done a good job so far and now we'll see what the PJ can do.

The public, on the whole - at least the ones who have looked into this case with something more than a passing glance - will know that the creche was the place the children spent the majority of their waking hours on the holiday. IIRC Kate mentions the odd hour here and there for an ice cream or a quick lunch, no family time of any substance like a day on an excursion, just scraps. So when CW showed saccharine moments and referred to it as a family holiday, The creche was played down, which puts a bit of a lie to the whole shebang.

With the kids safely tucked up for the day without the parents apart from brief moments, how did an observing predator get the chance to spy on Madeleine for more than the briefest of moments? It's not as if the family were day in day out on a beach for example, where an abductor would have a good opportunity to watch/select victim.

MADELEINE WAS HARDLY VISIBLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TAPAS NEVER MIND THE WIDER PUBLIC!!!

Sorry for the bolds, but WHEN THE HECK did a prolonged observation occur? By the creche records, and witness statements of Tapas, there was not many opportunities to match child - parent- apartment - Tapas bar, in order to plan a strike.

CW was all about making inaccurate statements and waiting to see the reaction. If someone publicly says something wrong that directly affects you, you will tell them

Burglaries in the area - refuted by the PJ

Bundleman excused despite walking in the wrong direction - did JT call NSY to tell them of their error? If not, Bundleman isn't off the hook after all

New efits that were actually 5 years old and known to all - delight all round at the new development

NSY will have learnt a lot from this

StraightThinking wrote:CW was all about making inaccurate statements and waiting to see the reaction. If someone publicly says something wrong that directly affects you, you will tell them

Burglaries in the area - refuted by the PJ

Bundleman excused despite walking in the wrong direction - did JT call NSY to tell them of their error? If not, Bundleman isn't off the hook after all

New efits that were actually 5 years old and known to all - delight all round at the new development

NSY will have learnt a lot from this

I sincerely hope so!!

Garrincha wrote:Just a thought: when AR said “we need to close this….this has gone on for far too long” I can’t imagine he was speaking to some unknown abductor in hope that they would respond – I think his target was much closer to home

AR knows quite well that 3 questions over a 12 hour period will crack Kate McCann. Can we not just reverse the clock for ONE DAY.

I've had a good think over night about many of the points made by some very good posts here and I am persuaded that this case may, just may, be being very cleverly handled. There are many reasons for this which I don't have the time to list.

 But the one at the top of my list is that I believe this may turn out to be the crime of the century. If so, what self-respecting detective would want to go down in history as a complete plonker who missed all the obvious signs that the public were screaming at them, demented panto fashion.

The other clue for me is always in the demeanour of this pair, and having looked at CW again, and being well acquainted with their body language, I certainly see how they may well have been wrong-footed live on air.

As I see it, this pair are as bold as brass. Their default setting is to lie. They lie so much it addles most peoples' brains. In short, they wear people down. Under normal circumstances people do have their breaking points but this show has been on the road since 2007 and the pair have been steeped in tactics of deflection and confusion. Plus they have learned a script. This is, of course, why they sound devoid of emotion, like people reading an autocue. They also cue one another, cover for one another. A veritable force a deux.

Apart from the evidential side which is difficult in any cold case - particularly one where the British forensics have let the case down - there is a psychological aspect to this case. Put crudely, a battle of wills. If you think KM might be the first to crack, think again of her composure when GM fell apart and walked out of an interview. She is hard as hell. Look at her demeanour at Portimao police station, compare it with Gerry who was green round the gills and very frightened. What woman wouldn't fall apart on hearing those cat calls as she went through the crowd. Most women would be distraught. No, she sailed on through, hair perfect, check: make-up perfect, check: earrings in: check: cuddle cat peeping out: check, clothes fresh and perky: check.

That is not to say that a hard veneer of varnish cannot crack. But first it has to be subjected to hard everyday knocks - directional questioning which she hates invariably changing the subject when the heat is on. 

Perhaps AR has played a blinder. Perhaps he saw the psychological dimension was the toughest side to this crime. Maybe that is why we've seen good cop to date, and he is saving bad cop when the psychological pressure of this seemingly mad investigation has taken its toll.

Excellent points, Mirage.

All I can add is "I hope..I hope..". Sunday left me feeling almost high with anticipation that justice for  a three year old child might finally be served. I felt dizzy.

Today, not quite so sure, but still hopeful.

The episode of  Maddie playing with her Mum's engagement ring.

Kate describes in her book and it was in the UK CW [ getting no longer accessible for the German version]....how Maddie played with this ring, trying it on, evening of 3rd when she was with the children and Gerry at tennis, Kate was with Maddie on the sofa.

 When she speaks of this in CW there is a noticeable change in her demeanour, she becomes very emotional. This might be because of an understandably poignant moment shared between mother and daughter, it could be because it brings back memories of a dreadful event.

 This is only speculation of course. Could the engagement ring play a major role in what happened? Kate says that she went for a shower, leaving the 3 children occupied with books, toys, did she leave Maddie with this ring and had Maddie mislaid it, did it drop and bouncing off that tiled floor, end up sliding under furniture?

 Did it drop behind the sofa they had been sitting on before Kate took her shower? As quick as she might have been, and sensible as she should have been in maybe parking the twins in their cots[ makeshift playpens?] and taking Maddie in the bathroom to chat while she showered, the few minutes alone would have been enough for Maddie to drop and try to retrieve this ring...hence the fatal fall, discovered when Kate emerged from the bathroom or when the twins alerted her to the fall. Not sure about the date or time, before 7pm on 3rd, given that there were only 3 hours until alarm time, but I do not understand the inclusion of this episode unless it happened.

 It could be the case that as a sentimental item, if it became damaged or lost for any length of time, Kate could have lost her cool, although I think that the dropping and attempt to retrieve is more likely, given that it would slip very easily off a 3 year old finger.

 eta  am having problems with zoom on windows 8. Curious to see if photos pre and post 2007 show the same engagement ring.. can anyone help as it would make sense if it played a part in a tragic accident for it to be cast aside in favour of something not associated with such tragedy.
 just some thoughts..


  2nd edit sorry.........watch between 10 and 11 minutes into the CW video. [ I noted Gerry looking very uncomfortable just before this, speaking of going to pick up kids from crèches at 5 pm].

Kate's voice and movements...she speaks with such emotion of this little episode with the ring, she starts fidgeting with her necklace and the neckline of her top. For whatever reason, speaking of this rather than tucking her up in her bed, the last time she saw her daughter, makes her very emotional and very uncomfortable. I think the ring might be the clue to Maddie's accident.

  https://youtu.be/WyJwns_MTok

russiandoll wrote:The episode of  Maddie playing with her Mum's engagement ring.

Kate describes in her book and it was in the UK CW [ getting no longer accessible for the German version]....how Maddie played with this ring, trying it on, evening of 3rd when she was with the children and Gerry at tennis, Kate was with Maddie on the sofa.

 When she speaks of this in CW there is a noticeable change in her demeanour, she becomes very emotional. This might be because of an understandably poignant moment shared between mother and daughter, it could be because it brings back memories of a dreadful event.

 This is only speculation of course. Could the engagement ring play a major role in what happened? Kate says that she went for a shower, leaving the 3 children occupied with books, toys, did she leave Maddie with this ring and had Maddie mislaid it, did it drop and bouncing off that tiled floor, end up sliding under furniture?

 Did it drop behind the sofa they had been sitting on before Kate took her shower? As quick as she might have been, and sensible as she should have been in maybe parking the twins in their cots[ makeshift playpens?] and taking Maddie in the bathroom to chat while she showered, the few minutes alone would have been enough for Maddie to drop and try to retrieve this ring...hence the fatal fall, discovered when Kate emerged from the bathroom or when the twins alerted her to the fall. Not sure about the date or time, before 7pm on 3rd, given that there were only 3 hours until alarm time, but I do not understand the inclusion of this episode unless it happened.

 It could be the case that as a sentimental item, if it became damaged or lost for any length of time, Kate could have lost her cool, although I think that the dropping and attempt to retrieve is more likely, given that it would slip very easily off a 3 year old finger.

 eta  am having problems with zoom on windows 8. Curious to see if photos pre and post 2007 show the same engagement ring.. can anyone help as it would make sense if it played a part in a tragic accident for it to be cast aside in favour of something not associated with such tragedy.
 just some thoughts..

I've seen her describe the ring incident before without tearing up or getting emotional!  I think the tears and the disheveled appearance on Crime Watch were pre-planned.  After failing miserably for 6+ years to appear convincing, that was her best performance to-date, and that's precisely why I don't buy it.

Can you point me to where Kate has described this elsewhere Pennylane? I have a vague memory of Kate speaking about this but can't recall when.

    I think Kate shows genuine emotion at times, perhaps not all to do with love, loss, maybe guilt, anxiety and stress due to years of deceit... who knows. I don't think the faces we saw on May anniversary this year were faked, the only time I have seen Gerry looked destroyed.
They were given some news which was devastating imo to account for those faces.

russiandoll wrote:Can you point me to where Kate has described this elsewhere Pennylane? I have a vague memory of Kate speaking about this but can't recall when.

    I think Kate shows genuine emotion at times, perhaps not all to do with love, loss, maybe guilt, anxiety and stress due to years of deceit... who knows. I don't think the faces we saw on May anniversary this year were faked, the only time I have seen Gerry looked destroyed.
They were given some news which was devastating imo to account for those faces.

Hi, russiandoll,

I've definitely seen her talking about it in depth before, most likely the Oprah Winfrey Show.  

I think the latter day emotions have come about because their stories are more concrete, and they have room for other thoughts besides grand deception.  But I believe the Crime Watch tears and dishevelment were preplanned. That's not to say she didn't have to muster up some genuinely sad memories to achieve it....  if you know what I mean.

Yes, she mentioned it on Oprah Winfrey. And as I recall it, it was a story told with a smile.

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, she mentioned it on Oprah Winfrey. And as I recall it, it was a story told with a smile.

Thank you Châtelaine x

Yes, it was portrayed as a warm and fuzzy memory.