PeterMac's Open Letter re: Proposed Crimewatch programme 14 October 2013 - Madeleine McCann.

Open letter re: Proposed Crimewatch programme 14 October 2013 - Madeleine McCann.

The letter is from PeterMac and he suggests that others also write to Crimewatch to express concerns about its likely content:

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/open-letter-re-proposed-crimewatch.html?spref=tw



Tel

email

7th October 2013

Mr Gavin Cappelle, Production Co-ordinator and Mr Joe Mather, Series Editor,
BBC Crimewatch Programme
BBC Broadcasting House
Portland Place
LONDON
W1A 1AA

Also for the attention of presenters Kirsty Young, Matthew Amroliwala and Martin Bayfield

By email to:
gavin.chappelle@bbc.co.uk
joe.mather@bbc.co.uk
kirsty.young@bbc.co.uk
matthew.amroliwala@bbc.co.uk
martin.bayfield@bbc.co.uk

Dear Mr Cappelle and Mr Mather

Proposed Crimewatch programme 14 October 2013 - Madeleine McCann

I have a number of concerns about the above proposed programme.

I understand that there is to be a ‘live’ interview with the McCanns and that a reconstruction of events will be shown, presumably of part of Thursday evening 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing.

The BBC has said that it will be showing a reconstruction of Madeleine’s ‘abduction’.

The alleged ‘reconstruction’ is reported in various media as taking place ‘abroad’ or in Spain but not in Portugal, and certainly not, therefore in Praia da Luz.

The duties of the BBC and Crimewatch

I understand that the BBC Charter requires that it be truthful and accurate and, where appropriate, must provide 'balanced' coverage of any issue, and that OFCOM has the power to investigate complaints.

‘Crimewatch’ has a formidable reputation, based on setting before the public accurate information about a crime, and asking for the public’s help in identifying the perpetrators. These principles must apply just as rigourously to the case of the reported disappearance of Madeleine.

Given the controversial, sensitive and high profile nature of this case, I must assume that the research done by Crimewatch into the background for any reconstruction and interview of the McCanns has been exceptionally thorough and meticulous. You will be aware that there are thousands of pages of witness statements, experts’ reports, forensic reports, photographs, videos and other material, which was made public on DVDs by the Portuguese Police as long ago as August 2008, and all of which has been translated into English, read and analysed in great detail on numerous internet websites, blogs and fora. You will no doubt for example have read all the relevant information on the McCannfiles blog (www.mccannfiles.com), a library of factual material about the case.

Was Madeleine McCann abducted?

Given the claim by the BBC in its advance publicity for your proposed programme that Madeleine McCann was ‘abducted’, the first question that the producers and editors of any Crimewatch programme have to answer is whether or not this is established as a fact

I hope, therefore, that you have considered the following:

• The detailed investigation Interim report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September, and publicly available on the internet, giving numerous clear reasons for concluding that Madeleine died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment and that they and/or others hid her body

• The contents of the book ‘The Truth Of The Lie’, written by Dr Gonçalo Amaral, which as you will be well aware is currently the subject of the final trial in the-long running libel action the McCanns brought against him

• The fact that the content of Dr Amaral’s book has been repeatedly shown to be entirely consistent with the contents of the police files released to the general public in 2008 (indeed this fact has been repeatedly emphasised during the first six days of this trial)

• The fact that the concluding report signed off by the regional Attorney-General in July 2008, whilst archiving the investigation and deciding there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone, made it plain that the Portuguese judicial authorities by no means established as a fact the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine had been abducted

• Indeed the probability that Madeleine had died in her parents’ apartment and her body hidden was explicitly acknowledged in the very same report.

If you have considered the above facts, I am not sure how the BBC can proceed with this programme at all, or to continue to refer to ‘the abduction’ of Madeleine. The alerts of two sniffer dogs belonging to top police dog handler Martin Grime cannot be ignored in considering whether or not Madeleine was abducted. The McCanns for example have never been able to explain the dogs’ alerts to the past presence of a human corpse in four locations in the McCanns’ flat, on three items of their clothing, in the hired car and other locations associated with them, and in no other places. Dr Gerald McCann has claimed that sniffer dogs are ‘incredibly unreliable’ despite the fact that their reliability is well established and their use in ever more fields of detection, drugs, explosives, medicine and other disciplines is growing rapidly. There are excellent BBC programmes on this very subject, the most recent showing a dog detecting early cancer of the kidney from urine.

To reinforce this point, let it be stated clearly - the only ‘evidence’ of abduction is the say-so of the McCanns themselves.

I believe that a complaint may be made to the disciplinary body of the National Union of Journalists if any member of the NUJ had contributed to a dishonest programme which ignored or set aside relevant facts.

The history of reconstructions or attempted reconstructions

In the Portuguese criminal justice system, reconstructions of events surrounding a murder or disappearance or other crime are used to test the validity of the witnesses’ statements. The actual persons involved in such events are the witnesses themselves. They will be invited to the scene of the crime. Such reconstructions are commonly video-recorded for the benefit of the criminal investigation. This is especially true where there are obvious contradictions between the witnesses’ statement, as is manifestly the case regarding Madeleine’s disappearance. Your researchers must be fully aware of these. They have been extensively catalogued and analysed (a) in the interim report of Tavares de Almeida (b) in the Attorney-General’s final report (c) in Dr Gonçalo Amaral’s book and (d) on numerous Madeleine McCann information and discussion sites on the internet.

This type of ‘reconstruction’ is very different from a ‘Crimewatch’-style televised reconstruction.

Dr Amaral wanted to do such a reconstruction as it was clear in the first days of the investigation that there were significant inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements, even between various statements made by the same witness. As he explains in his book, he decided not to do one because of the intense media spotlight he and his team were under.

A reconstruction of some of the events of 3 May 2007 was shown on the BBC’s Panorama programme on 19 November 2007.

A second attempt by the Portuguese police to hold a reconstruction occurred in the spring of 2008. The McCanns and their friends all declined to take part, after taking legal advice, giving a variety of reasons for not doing so. Dr Gerald McCann specifically said at the time that he saw no purpose in such a reconstruction as the police would not be showing the reconstruction on TV. He said he wanted a ‘Crimewatch-style’ reconstruction. Therefore the proposed Portuguese police reconstruction could not proceed.

The Channel 4 reconstruction, 2009

In May 2009, Channel 4 screened a reconstruction made by Mentorn Media. This was heavily criticised by many on a number of grounds, including these:

• It featured the description of a possible abductor by Jane Tanner, despite numerous indications that her alleged ‘sighting’ was fabricated (see below)

• It attempted to link an alleged sighting of a man carrying a child by Martin Smith, at around 10.00pm in a different part of Praia da Luz, with Jane Tanner’s claimed ‘sighting’ at 9.15pm. The improbability of any abductor walking around the village for 45 minutes or more carrying a child is so obvious as to hardly require mention

• It attempted to suggest that the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner and the man allegedly seen by Martin Smith were one and the same, despite Jane Tanner describing the man as having ‘long, black hair’ whilst the man described by Martin Smith had ‘short, brown hair’

• Three witnesses, namely Jane Tanner, Jeremy Wilkins and Dr Gerald McCann gave significantly contradictory statements about the very moment when Jane Tanner claimed to have seen the abductor at 9.15pm. These were contemptuously dismissed on the TV reconstruction by the McCanns’ then chief private investigator, ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, as ‘inevitable inconsistencies’. Any serious detective would have probed the contradictions, which should have been fully aired on the programme

• The man shown in the documentary as carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment did not look the same as Jane Tanner’s description. In any case, of course, Jane Tanner admitted to not seeing his face.

Severe doubts about the credibility of Jane Tanner

The reasons for doubting the evidence of Jane Tanner are many but include:

• changes in her accounts, such as changing the direction in which the person she claimed to have seen was walking

• her recollection of details about the abductor and the child improving with time, such as ‘recollecting’ on a second interview precise details of the pattern of the pyjamas of the girl being carried (in line with what she then knew about Madeleine’s pyjamas, but crucially miscalculating the length of the pyjama bottoms )

• rambling and over-elaborate descriptions of the abductor and what he was wearing, both when interviewed by the Portuguese police and later when re-interviewed by Leicestershire Police

• her positive identification on 13 May 2007 of Robert Murat as the person she’d seen carrying a child away from near the McCanns’ apartment - only for her to change her mind about this months later

• her willingness to claim that the person she claimed to have seen looked like a moustachioed man seen in a sketch by a Mrs Gail Cooper, despite the fact that Jane Tanner admitted on 3 May never having seen the man’s face

• the fact that at a press conference in August 2009, the McCanns’ chief investigator, Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have been mistaken and seen a woman carrying a child, not a man

• the fact that her story was so vague and inconsistent that the Portuguese police dismissed it as a fabrication from very early on in their investigation.

Other facts that the BBC should perhaps take into account if they are to proceed with this broadcast

I invite you to consider the following additional points:

• The thread of criminality running through the McCann Team’s investigators. If the BBC has researched the background material to this case then you will be aware that the McCanns’ first preferred detectives, the Spanish firm Metodo3, has a long record of criminal conduct. Two of Metodo3’s investigators who worked very closely with the head of the McCann Team’s private investigators, Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy, have served time in prison.

• Antonio Giminez Raso spent four years in prison on remand due to his association with a 27 strong gang of drug-dealers who were convicted of serious criminal charges in a Barcelona court last year.

• Julian Peribañez who also worked very closely with Brian Kennedy has spent much of this year after his arrest for illegally taping the conversations of Spanish politicians, an offence he has now admitted and for which he is awaiting sentence.

• The McCanns also employed Kevin Halligen, who charged the McCann Team £500,000 plus expenses yet, as exposed in a 2009 article in the Evening Standard and elsewhere, spent most of the time he was employed by them on high living in London, Oxfordshire and the U.S. with his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis, and was arrested in 2009 on serious fraud charges in the U.S. which he eventually admitted. He spent a total of four years in Belmarsh and another top security prison in the U.S. None of these investigators had any experience in locating missing children but most had expertise in such areas as money laundering and fraud.

These private detectives have together with the McCann Team produced a bewildering variety of so-called ‘suspects’ and ‘persons tightly of interest’, 21 in total so far, two of them women, a fact which also undermines the credibility of the McCann Team’s private investigators, not to mention Tanner’s statements.

Should the BBC continue to promote the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted, you must take full account of these and indeed many other matters of real concern about the McCanns’ private investigations, which again your researchers must know.

• Dr Kate McCann’s refusal to answer any one of 48 questions put to her on interview by the Portuguese police on 7 September 2007.

• The numerous contradictions in the witnesses’ evidence about the events of 3 May 2007.

This is a vast subject. Again, no doubt your researchers, together with D.C.I. Andy Redwood and his team, are aware of the following contradictions and changes of story etc. These contradictions would need to be resolved if possible before any realistic reconstruction could possibly take place. If you proceed with a reconstruction, you will be faced with the problem of which version of events you will be presenting to viewers. I believe the only honest way for the BBC to proceed would be to present the viewer with all the contradictions, letting the viewer see what they are, and allowing us to draw our own conclusions. Among the main contradictions are the following:

• Three different versions about a claimed ‘high tea’ that Madeleine is said to have had with her parents and crèche staff at about 5.30pm

• Two entirely different versions (Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne) of an alleged visit by Dr Payne to the McCanns’ apartment, when he claims to have seen all three children alive

• Three different accounts (Dr Gerald McCann, Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins (whom we understand may have worked for Crimewatch before)) about events at around 9.15pm on 3 May, the time when Jane Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child

• Whether or not the curtains of the children’s room in the apartment were wide open (Dr Kate McCann’s first version) or closed (Dr Kate McCann’s later version)

• Whether you will be showing the shutters smashed, broken, and jemmied open (the McCanns’ first versions) or completely undamaged (reality - and subsequently admitted as such by the McCanns’ spokesman, Clarence Mitchell)

• Whether you will be showing Dr Gerald McCann entering through the ‘front door using his key’ (Dr McCann’s first police statement), or ‘going in through the unlocked patio door’ (Dr Gerald McCann’s second police statement)

• Whether you will be showing Madeleine tucked up in bed because it was a cold night (Dr Kate McCann’s version - the cold also being testified to by the rest of the McCanns’ friends and indeed by weather records ) - or lying on top of the covers because it was so hot (Dr Gerald McCann’s version).

• The extremely limited ‘window of opportunity’ for any claimed abductor to have removed Madeleine from the apartment.

On the basis of statements made by Dr Gerald McCann, Jane Tanner and Jeremy Wilkins, with very precise timing included within them ( Dr McCann for example says he left the table at 9:04 by his watch, and the apartment at 9.10pm, and Jane Tanner says she saw a man carrying a child in the area at 9.15pm ) the time available for the abductor to remove Madeleine is somewhere between 1 minute 20 seconds, and three minutes. During this time, the McCann Team suggest that an intruder could have entered the apartment (either via the open patio door with the father directly outside, or by having a key to the front door), sedated three children, selected one of them, picked her up, turned her round so that her feet are now to the right, opened the curtains, window and shutters as some kind of ‘red herring’ (see ‘red herring’ statement made by Dr Kate McCann) and then exit, all of this being accomplished without being seen or heard by anyone except Jane Tanner and without leaving any forensic trace. (The suggestion that Madeleine and the twins were sedated is a repeated theme of the McCanns and their team over the past six years. They moved from strong denials and threats to sue, to an acceptance that it must have happened, even though there is no known substance which could have been used within that time frame. Dr Kate McCann is a qualified anaesthetist and must be aware of this ).

• The only fingerprints on the window found by police being those of Dr Kate McCann, strongly suggesting that she opened the window in order to promote the abduction scenario.

• In the very unlikely event that Madeleine is still alive and is being held by the abductor or others, has BBC Crimewatch assessed the risk that its programme could lead to Madeleine being harmed by the person who now has her ?

A useful summary of the many contradictions, changes of story and other inconsistencies amongst the witness statements in this case can be read in an e-book by Michael McLean at:

http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf
or
http://freepdfhosting.com/d2238cdf6b.pdf

Yours sincerely

Peter MacLeod
BSc LLB MA
Retired Police Superintendent
Nottinghamshire 1972 - 2000

-----------

Related link: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7917-crimewatch-reconstruction-however-kate-and-gerry-have-banned-the-re-enactment-of-their-daughters-disappearance-from-taking-place-in-portugal-through-fear-of-angering-the-countrys-police

My hands are sore from clapping and I feel very emotional seeing this.    Absolutely marvellous PeterM.


      Those claps are for all of the dedicated and courageous people who are publicly speaking out and allowing us to post our opinion/thoughts.    

I still feel outraged about the treatment of Tony Bennett and Mr. A. but even more so (if that is possible) having read that letter.

£5 million quid spent already, WHAT IS GOING ON?

    For Maddie and all those mentioned above.

That letter says it all. Petermac. Good effort.

PeterMac

I huge Bravo from me - lost for words to express how I feel.  

Its just utterly beyond belief that not only are we "the public" paying £5 ml. plus for the Review-cum-Investigation. 

Money donated by "the public" paying towards their supposed Reconstruction. 

We now have the pleasure of the McCanns using a "publicly funded organisation" to broadcast an Appeal as well. 

Thrice thrashed at our own cost.

PeterMac, the link to the letter has gone down in the last few minutes.

P.S. It's back now.

  A truly excellent letter Peter Mac which surely can't be ignored

Fantastic , well said!

Note to admin ; hope that's not P Mac's home address on display there at the start of letter???

Upsy!

My only complaint about the letter is that it is stated that Gonçalo Amaral wanted to do the reconstruction because of the contradictions, etc. but he decided against it. This is not the case. First of all, GA did not lead the investigation. Secondly, it was not his decision alone that the reconstruction was not carried out. The investigation was not a one man show, it was team work under the authority of the Ministério Público.

Hi Peter Mac, 
What an excellent letter!!!

All credit to you PeterMac    

Whilst I agree, PeterMac, with the above comments on your excellent letter, I must wonder why you intend to send it now. With less than a week to go to broadcast, the McCann element of the program must be just about complete with at worst a few items remaining to clear up. The BBC are not going to change direction now, even if their assessment of the McCann affair is completely at odds with yours (and ours).

We know the McCanns have had little or no say in the programme's development. On the other hand, the Met appear to have been closely involved. Provided the BBC are impartial, it doesn't take much to see which way the programme is likely to lean.

Your letter, in my view, would be much better held in reserve to send to the BBC and the appropriate watchdog should the broadcaster transmit a programme which is very much in the McCanns' favour. Whilst I am aware of the very poor item broadcast in the BBC's East Midlands programme, their earlier Newsnight interview was certainly fair from our viewpoint.

Great letter - it's good for them to know that people are very aware of the issues and want to flag up some potentially serious legal issues if they mishandle the situation.

They can't say they haven't been warned of possible consequences should they not do their job properly.

I think it's very worth them knowing that it will be heavily scrutinised.


 

gbwales wrote:Great letter - it's good for them to know that people are very aware of the issues and want to flag up some potentially serious legal issues if they mishandle the situation.

They can't say they haven't been warned of possible consequences should they not do their job properly.

I think it's very worth them knowing that it will be heavily scrutinised.


 

Agree gbw,

There is far more to gain, and  nothing to lose by sending it now!  In addition the Beeb are capable of adding or deducting from the recorded show if they feel jittery about certain claims.  Makes no sense to wait (imo).

This excellent letter by PeterMac can still be sent to the watchdog if the show is found to be nonfactual and unsatisfactorily biased.  No stone unturned as they say!

A brilliant letter and contrary to espelands thoughts, most appropriate to send. They should have no excuse that they did not know the truth.

PeterMac

Brilliant 

What an excellent letter; definitely needs to be sent now imo.

Absolutely brilliant, PeterMac, and brilliant timing too.
Yes, espeland, probably it's too late to change much now, especially if, they (the BBC) have done their normal typically and deliberately one-sided job.
But that's the BBC's problem. They know their charter and conditions. If they have not respected them, PeterMac's letter will :-
(a) inform them that we are watching them very closely indeed, and
(b) if they have been one-sided, they will know what is about to hit them, once it has been aired.
There may be some rushing around to try to make things look kosher, but we are talking 'arrogance and kow-towing' here, from years of intrusive political infiltration and abuse. (I used to work for the BBC, saw the arrogance first hand)
PeterMac, your letter is both informative and unequivocal.  

Brilliant letter.

That must have taken quite some time to prepare. I admire your courage in speaking out for Madeleine.

I agree, an excellent letter.  Time is short for any changes to be made to the reconstruction, of course, but wasn't the McCanns mockumentary changed and the actress playing Kate deleted at the last minute?  So, possibly not too late for some deletions, but probably no time left to change in any other way.  The BBC will be deluged afterwards if it isn't accurately represented according to the PJ files.

Excellent, well done PeterMac. This should give them something to think about , there is a lot of us that do know a damned lot about this case and we will not roll over and let the Mcs or SY dictate to us without pointing out their lies !!!   If SY can't see it, we can......

That is a great letter PeterMac and there couldn't be a better time to send it.
Whether or not the programme is finalised the BBC need to be reminded of its duty to the public that pays for it's existence. The public are sick of the BBC and know that it has an abysmal record of protecting children from its own perverted employees. When it comes to pay-outs, they award huge sums to certain individuals and BBC executives yet paltry sums to the abused whom they failed to protect. Whether the BBC has a genuine interest in discovering what happened to this particular child, Madeleine McCann, will be evident by how it chooses to inform the public of the facts. I'm glad you've informed them in advance.

Well, with the hand in their hands, they cant say they haven't been warned of possible consequences if they misrepresent the facts to the public.

The Licence payers would be fury if their money go to dishonest practice by BBC if it comes to that. Already they hardly survived Jimmy Saville, will they survive a repeat of it?

The BBC can and have 'pulled' loads of 'factual' programmes right up to the time of almost broadcasting.

When they have a complaint from somebody involved in a programme they are to show they pull it almost immediately.

usually with the blurb 'we are sorry we are unable to broadcast the advertised programme' but in reality they have been challenged as to the content they were going to broadcast.

Panorama BBC 'flagship' is often getting 'pulled' before broadcast because of 'inaccuracies'.

So they can retract their assertion that Madeleine WAS 'abducted', unless they have proof, beyond contestation, that is TRUE.

But will they?

They hadn't changed the wording on their Crimewatch 'web page' yesterday, even though they were informed at least 3 days ago about it.

BBC 'OSTRICHES'?

It's possible they haven't retracted the word 'abducted' from their pre-screening blurb because Scotland Yard have informed them that it is the correct word - let's hope that's not the case.

tasprin wrote:It's possible they haven't retracted the word 'abducted' from their pre-screening blurb because Scotland Yard have informed them that it is the correct word - let's hope that's not the case.

I would bet money that IS the case!

If SY used the word 'missing' or 'disappeared,' so would Crimewatch (imo).

pennylane wrote:

tasprin wrote:It's possible they haven't retracted the word 'abducted' from their pre-screening blurb because Scotland Yard have informed them that it is the correct word - let's hope that's not the case.

I would bet money that IS the case!

If SY used the word 'missing' or 'disappeared,' so would Crimewatch (imo).

If that was the case, I would hope that it was part of the 'softly softly catch a monkey' and not letting the suspects know that they are the suspects.

Part of my short message to SY states that I have not seen in any official statements from SY the word abduction.
 I have seen,  included with reference to this programme, the word disappearance.
 Also in 2 courtrooms the word abduction has not been used to denote what happened to Maddie.
Not by their lawyer in their ongoing libel trial, and had to be retracted in a UK libel case as it could not be stated as a fact.

 I added that if they were using this because they knew the conclusions of SY, that should have come at the end of the report on the Maddie case, when SY would make it clear that was their conclusion and how they had reached it, not before the programme aired.

loopzdaloop wrote:

That table makes it look like Kate is    ...Gerry's getting   ...well - you know 

loopzdaloop wrote:

pennylane wrote:

tasprin wrote:It's possible they haven't retracted the word 'abducted' from their pre-screening blurb because Scotland Yard have informed them that it is the correct word - let's hope that's not the case.

I would bet money that IS the case!

If SY used the word 'missing' or 'disappeared,' so would Crimewatch (imo).

If that was the case, I would hope that it was part of the 'softly softly catch a monkey' and not letting the suspects know that they are the suspects.

Brilliant!  

We can but hope, loopz.   

Personaly, I'll be very surprised if the Crimewatch recon isn't based solely on the gruesome twosome and Jane Tanner's absurd version of events, and that the man that the Smith's saw (if included at all), bears no resemblance whatsoever to Gerry McCann.... even though they were 80% sure it was him.

Juliet Bremner in her ITV news report yesterday did use the phrase ".. or whatever happened to her .."
which I could take as encouraging.