BBC PANORAMA DOCUMENTARY

Hi,
Regarding last nights BBC Panarama documentary (Madeline McCann Ten Years On (3 May 2017) ?
I think that the style and editing were very misleading, it was not explained that it was two different apartments at different times.
It seemed to have a very biased slant and would give many people the wrong inpression.

Tunein

Will take a look later as have to go out now but looks interesting and thanks for OP.

tunein wrote:Hi,
Did you watch last nights BBC Panarama documentary (Madeline McCann Ten Years On (3 May 2017) ?
THERE ARE FAKE 2nd APARTMENT SCENES IN IT.
Please download from iplayer and watch here is a link  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
When Richard Bilton narrates at the time stamp of 13:25 he says "central to their theory are two sniffer dogs from the uk" and we see a man with a stripped t shirt and jeans lead a dog in an apartment- then at 13:30 we see a cutaway shot to the house number on the wall 5a.
The dog and handler proceeds to look and sniff around the lounge room of the McCanns apartment 5a in Pria da Luz, this is old original footage and shows the correct apartment with one set of patio doors/blue curtains and blue sofas and light possibly grey or white patterned tiled floor, this is the correct apartment and is shot in non high def quality as used at the time.
At 13:38 we see a similar dog on a totally different floor looking around for scent.
After that at 14.07 there is a narration by a man who apears to speak on behalf of the McCanns I dont know his name but he is next to a window with trees and shrubs outside, he has grey hair and wears a dark suit jacket and blue and white check shirt, he goes on to explain away the evidence of the cuddly cat toy belonging to Madeline, he then goes on to say "If you see the video Richard, the dog pulls it out at one point then walks past it twice" -- at the same time we are seeing a video of the dog becoming disinterested in the cudly toy.
At 14:24 we see the first set of patio doors and at 14:38 we see a second set in the same room where the action is taking part.
The narration tries to give the impression that its the original same room 5a shown in the first scene.
THE MCCANNS APARTMENT 5a ONLY HAD ONE SET OF PATIO DOORS ?
Also we see in the footage of the fake room that it has very dark floor tiles with no pattern only a granite mottle effect, the sofa is striped and has wooden arm rests and the curtains are white with coloured squares THIS SCENE IS FABRICATED.
This second dog scene is shot in a modern format and very carefully edited to show only certain details.
We may also assume that the dog and dog handler are also fabricated.


I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN PROFESSIONAL EDITING AND SUGGEST THAT THIS FOOTAGE HAS BEEN SHOT,EDITED AND NARRATED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DECEIVE AND TO DISCREDIT THE DOG EVIDENCE.
SO THE QUESTION IS WHO INSTIGATED THIS AND WHY.


Please check this out

Tunein

To the best of my knowledge the sniffer dogs examined not only 5A but also the new apartment the McCanns were moved to after 4th May. I seem to remember seeing this before and if I remember correctly Eddie barked outside the cupboard containing cuddlecat in this apartment, not 5A. Martin Grime then hid cuddlecat in a box of toys, reintroduced Eddie who alerted by digging it out of this box and dropping it in the middle of the floor. I don't believe these are fake videos, merely ones less known. C.M. seems to be trying to discredit Eddie by saying that after he had scented out cuddlecat and dropped it he lost interest. Rubbish! he had fulfilled his task. What else did he expect him to do - stand on his hind legs and clap like a seal?

CM also said Cuddlecat wasn't washed until 70 days later. Is that true ?

polyenne wrote:CM also said Cuddlecat wasn't washed until 70 days later. Is that true ?

Kate said the last time she saw Maddie she had CC in her arms.  Gerry said his last view of Maddie was with CC beside her.  

CC was said to be washed twice, around the time the sniffer dogs arrived.

Washing Cuddlecat stinks to high heaven no matter how many days later
imo

The sections with Eddie the cadaver dog are, as with the rest of the programme content, extremely misleading by obvious intent, which under the circumstances is true fake journalism and should be illegal in itself, IMO.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I've got a feeling it was the other way round - basket first, then cupboard. Apologies if I'm wrong.


Eddie is shown being led into 5A by Martin Grime and is then filmed in the lounge area - but it is cut before Eddie reacts strongly to the floor area behind the sofa (which is shown later for some reason). The scene then jumps to the lounge of the villa that the McCanns moved into - this is where Eddie was filmed alerting to cuddle cat. If this section of film had been allowed to run it would have shown Martin Grime hiding cuddle cat in a closed cupboard to intensify any odour and Eddie alerting to it again, more strongly. Clarrie is used to discredit the weaker of the cuddle cat alerts - the overall effect being that all Eddie's alerts are dismissed as being weak/inconsequential, in a similar manner to the way the DNA results are handled, Bilton says forcibly, - 'none match the DNA of Madeleine McCann', no mention of the 15 out of 19 marker match.

Anyone who hasn't put some effort in to really understanding what's going on will have absolutely no idea that they are been hoodwinked - it's the BBC after all, you can trust them.

Thanks for the upload @Get'emGoncalo.

@ skyrocket. I think you're right. Basket first, then hidden in cupboard which Eddie alerts to. Grime opens it and takes out cuddlecat to show why Eddie is barking.

Yes it was basket first then the cupboard.

I wondered when they'd get round to trying to dismiss the dogs in their current campaign. 

The Independent have been at it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It later transpired, however, that neither the sniffer dog or DNA evidence were as watertight as some observers assumed.
Sniffer dog evidence has been the subject of research questioning its reliability, and in one US court case, a judge agreed with analysis of three cadaver dogs’ performances which found they were wrong 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.
The DNA evidence, meanwhile, came with a major ‘health warning’ from the FSS.
An email from John Lowe, of the FSS team, stated that only 15 out of a set of 19 components of Madeleine’s DNA profile had been found in the hire car.
Mr Lowe cautioned: “The individual components in Madeleine's profile are not unique to her; it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeleine's profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included.
“It's important to stress that 50 per cent of Madeleine's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. ... Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine, or is it a chance match."

I've just got around to watching the BBC Panorama extravaganza - not the wisest move after dinner but time is of the essence.  I'm inclined to agree that the Sky production is more acceptable, less slimy let's say but I think I'm beginning to see the true purpose..  Sky v. BBC.  Much the same agenda but a competition nonetheless, that doesn't of course account for all the other circus acts these past days.

A few observations totally lacking in attention to detail - frankly the BBC production is not even worthy of acknowledgement, let alone attention to detail.  Pay particular attention to Bilton the presenter who appears to be using the opportunity to further his image rather than his skill as an investigative journalist - or whatever he claims to be.

We are still learning more about the case.  Are you?  Pray tell - what are you still learning?

Bilton standing in the shrubbery before apartment 5a doing an Alan Titchmarsh impersonation.

I learned one thing, the Tapas restaurant had a green roof - that makes all the difference.

Clarence Mitchell seems to be getting a bit wobbly - is it anger or realisation of the position he finds himself in - or a bit of each.

Clarence Mitchell says:  It's no wonder cuddlecat was dirty - Kate  had been holding onto it in front of the media.  Oooops - foot and mouth moment there Clarrie!

Amaral explained his theory in a controversial documentary - the mccanns have bever been able to explain their theory.  

BBC national newspaper launched Operation Grange.   Jim Gamble strikes again only this time with a slightly difference slant.

Stephenson - the BBC's Met Police stooge

Commander Foy says the McCanns innocence is obvious because they were where they said they were when madeleine went missing.    He chose Andy Redwood to lead the investigation - must have been after Colin Sutton turned down the offer.  Was Foy the one who gave him the wink about the Operation Grange remit or was it Gamble?

Clarence was told ? about a crime wave that hit the area that was kept quiet so as not to damage tourism but the McCanns didn't know anything about it.  Funny - that excuse has been frequently repeated by the MCann online support network.

Portuguese criminologist says the alleged burglary in Pamela Fenns apartment adopted the same modus operandi - i.e through a window.  On the first floor?   What was it, a cuddlecat burglar?

So circumstances and phone records suggest that Madeleine was abducted by burglars - so - where is Madeleine?

The British police believe the Smith sighting could have been a burglar carrying away the body of Madeleine McCann.  Give me strength!

A minor question - why did the production team of both Sky and the BBC interview only fence-sitters and McCann supporters?

Clarence Mitchell would sell his soul to the devil for want of a farthing.

So the "investigative journalist" who made the programme managed to track down and interview the "man who booked the McCanns in", and a man who had been interviewed and dismissed as a suspect three years or more ago, who also seemed to have learning difficulties.  

However, "Crecheman", apparently seen carrying a child in outstretched arms, who was part of a "major breakthrough" several years ago, and was featured in a previous BBC documentary, has managed to elude all efforts by the media to get a scoop on his side of the story.  The media, especially the tabloids, would have been hunting high and low for him, waving chequebooks at him, and asking him to name his price for "Maddie Suspect:- Why I Didn't Come Forward for Six Years"

comments

Naz_Nomad wrote:However, "Crecheman", apparently seen carrying a child in outstretched arms, who was part of a "major breakthrough" several years ago, and was featured in a previous BBC documentary, has managed to elude all efforts by the media to get a scoop on his side of the story.  The media, especially the tabloids, would have been hunting high and low for him, waving chequebooks at him, and asking him to name his price for "Maddie Suspect:- Why I Didn't Come Forward for Six Years"

A very valid point which ties in with my view that I find it almost impossible to understand how, if we accept an abduction had taken place, no one has come forward with any credible information that might have enabled them to claim the huge reward that was up for grabs.

Where is the witness statement from Crecheman?

Have the PJ ever spoken to him?

He could have seen something.

All rhetorical questions.

He doesn't exist.

When the truth eventually comes out, Scotland Yard will have a lot to answer for.

The beginning of crecheman..

Crimewatch 2013 - Madeleine McCann Special

DCI Andy Redwood:  One ot the things we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night creche which was operating from the main ocean club reception and eight families had left eleven children there.

One particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting .... in fact I would say it was a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting.

We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
DCI Andy Redwood get's all excited 

Crimewatch presenter:  The British father had collected his 2 year old daughter from the creche, he had been walking near the McCanns apartment.  This is the actual photograph taken by the Metropolitan Police officers of the man dressed in the kind of clothes he wore on holiday.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
DCI Andy Redwood's 'revelation moment'


.. the end of crecheman!

"We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor."

Remit.

I gie up ,I cant get this message right ,letter all juggled up  every time ,what is the problem ?joyce1938sv

joyce1938 wrote:I gie up ,I cant get this message right ,letter all juggled up  every time ,what is the problem ?joyce1938sv

I'm not aware of any problem, nor have I seen mention of any other member having a problem.

Are you having the same trouble posting on the Missing Madeleine forum?  If so I suggest it's your device, otherwise I haven't a clue why you might be experiencing problems on CMoMM in particular.

BlueBag wrote:

"We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor."

Remit.

Can someone please explain this remit concept to me. Does it mean that for example "You are required to investigate the disappearance of a child but make sure the parents are not implicated in any way". You thoroughly investigate and find a history of paedophile suspicions against the parents and then discount it? Your evidence points to the facts that the parents are liars regarding the cas but you must discount it? You discover that the other children in the group have been examined as sex abuse cases then do you discount this as well? Love to find out what this remit concept is all about.

With thanks to Gene Hunt on twitter for finding this article about Richard Bilton:


BBC stalker programme 'tracked wrong man'

A BBC Panorama investigation into an alleged stalker ended in farce when the team spent a week pursuing the wrong man.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Richard Bilton Photo: BBC

By Anita Singh
11:06AM GMT 31 Jan 2011

Richard Bilton, a reporter on the BBC One current affairs show, confronted the man outside his home and accused him of stalking a former girlfriend.
The filming was for an episode of Panorama entitled Stop Stalking Me, in which a woman claimed she had endured a two-year campaign of harassment at the hands of her ex-partner.
The team watched the man's home in Ormskirk, Lancs for a week before Bilton approached him with a camera crew in tow and asked him to respond to the claims.
Unfortunately, the had the wrong man. Instead of tracking the alleged stalker, they had been following his twin brother. He walked straight to a local police station to report them.
A Lancashire police spokesman said: "On January 22, a man reported being followed from the end of his road to the police station. He said they had filmed him and asked him questions about a court case that was ongoing but that it was a case of mistaken identity.
"Officers spoke to the crew who were causing the man stress. The matter was dealt with at the time."
The programme was broadcast last Monday but did not include footage of the alleged stalker' brother. A BBC spokesman said: "There was a case of mistaken identity involving someone who lived at the same address and used the same vehicle as the man we were trying to put questions to. This did not feature in any way in the broadcast programme.
"The Panorama investigation into stalking is clearly in the public interest and the police investigation into the case is still ongoing."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Captain_Pugwash wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

"We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor."

Remit.

Can someone please explain this remit concept to me. Does it mean that for example "You are required to investigate the disappearance of a child but make sure the parents are not implicated in any way". You thoroughly investigate and find a history of paedophile suspicions against the parents and then discount it? Your evidence points to the facts that the parents are liars regarding the cas but you must discount it? You discover that the other children in the group have been examined as sex abuse cases then do you discount this as well? Love to find out what this remit concept is all about.

I didn't know that had happened. Which children?

Irene 2 wrote:

Captain_Pugwash wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

"We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor."

Remit.

Can someone please explain this remit concept to me. Does it mean that for example "You are required to investigate the disappearance of a child but make sure the parents are not implicated in any way". You thoroughly investigate and find a history of paedophile suspicions against the parents and then discount it? Your evidence points to the facts that the parents are liars regarding the cas but you must discount it? You discover that the other children in the group have been examined as sex abuse cases then do you discount this as well? Love to find out what this remit concept is all about.

I didn't know that had happened. Which children?

It hasn't happened - at least there is no evidence to suggest it has.

Best ignored before it grows legs and goes for very long walkies.

Verdi wrote:

Irene 2 wrote:

Captain_Pugwash wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

"We are almost certain now that this sighting is not the abductor."

Remit.

Can someone please explain this remit concept to me. Does it mean that for example "You are required to investigate the disappearance of a child but make sure the parents are not implicated in any way". You thoroughly investigate and find a history of paedophile suspicions against the parents and then discount it? Your evidence points to the facts that the parents are liars regarding the cas but you must discount it? You discover that the other children in the group have been examined as sex abuse cases then do you discount this as well? Love to find out what this remit concept is all about.

I didn't know that had happened. Which children?

It hasn't happened - at least there is no evidence to suggest it has.

Best ignored before it grows legs and goes for very long walkies.

Oh, ok. Sorry.

Irene 2 wrote:

Oh, ok. Sorry.

No apology necessary .  You're right to ask questions Irene 2, especially if it nips another myth in the bud!