CRIMEWATCH RECONSTRUCTION - However, Kate and Gerry have banned the re-enactment of their daughter’s disappearance from taking place in Portugal through fear of angering the country’s police.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

dentdelion wrote:"They have taken her".  Why would one use plural word 'they' in this context?  It sounds so odd, surely "Maddie is missing/gone, someone must have taken her".  Rather an overreaction to assume abduction when she might just have wandered out by herself but worse to assume a multiple of abductors!   A conspiracy no less!

Didn't she say those 'f***ing b*****ds' have taken her?  Unfortunately I can't remember where I read that, but am sure I did. Charmless as it is, ffing b's is even more specific than 'they', and implies she knew who took her.

 No, I don't think Kate McCann ever used the f___ b___ words - but back to dentdelion's post: CAUTION - this evidence comes from Charlotte Pennington:

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

Yes, Kate did use the words f__ b__.

A couple who SY have since interviewed gave a statement. They were woken up by the door bell ringing at 11.30pm. It was a friend of the McCann's saying that a little girl had been abducted. The friend asked if the had a computer so they could get the media involved in the search. "Two police were on the corner of our block". "We did see single men on mobiles who could have been police". "We walked up back to our apartment.....the McCann's were in bits, he was crying on the shoulder of a friend, she was screaming: the F__ b__ have taken her.

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

Kate and Gerry McCann request the presence of Daniel Krugel and his 'dead body finding machine'
Chapter 14: The Truth About The Lie

It is at this time that, suddenly, the parents seem to admit the possibility of their daughter's death. Afterwards - and to this day, if I am not mistaken -, they take exception to this hypothesis. Perhaps we were being naive, but it had seemed to us that Kate was going to provide us, indirectly, with indications about where her daughter's body was to be found. Thus, at the beginning of June, she informed us that the body could have been hidden in the outlet of a sewer pipe at Praia da Luz, or on the cliffs to the west of the beach, where she happened to run. She will say later that this information had been given to her by mediums possessing psychic power.

On June 28th, the McCanns request Krugel's presence in the Algarve. They want to make his intervention official and seek the agreement of the PJ. Thanks to Madeleine's hair, the South African allegedly determined a sort of imaginary line that allowed him to state that the body was in the Vila da Luz area. The Portuguese and English police learn, with amazement, about these supposed cutting-edge technologies dedicated to locating bodies. Of course, we knew that such apparatus existed, especially in the United States, but Krugel's mysterious, "machine," leaves us all speechless. Kate and Gerry, they stick to their guns. They saw a television programme in which the effectiveness of Krugel's method was demonstrated, and so are persuaded that the man will be able to move the investigation forward. Without being convinced as to the validity of the method, the police end up acceding to their request.

IIRC when Yvonne Martin talked to the mccanns (and before Payne interfered and got her away) KM talked about a "couple" taking the child.

Yes that is my recollection too and that, together with the fragrant Kate's description of them as effing bar stewards (or something like that), must surely mean that she knew who they were and could contact them.

This is all new to me. I was surprised at the time that the McCanns' never seemed to accept that Madeleine might be dead. I assumed as health professionals they would have understood the painful reality of child abduction. I put their reaction down to the understandable and normal grief reaction of denial. I had not realised they had hired someone to look for a body.

tigger wrote:

plebgate wrote:Why would the judge refer to Mrs. by her maiden name - was it her maiden name on the" application to be heard"  to the court.

If so,  why use her maiden name - is it possible that the rumours of a break up are true?

Is it legal to use your maiden name on an application to court if you are married and have legally taken your husband's surname?

Booth was equally keen on her maiden name, despite trying to be the UK's ' first lady' ( not necessary you already have the Queen) and despite being thePM's wife.
Look at the Blairs and look at the  McCanns - what do you see? The same ambition and the same thundering bad taste.
Booth tried to take over from the royals by launching  a ship early in her career. Blair was looking for a new role in 2007, one of which was president of Europe. So I think the source of  the original protection lies with Blair and his cronies.

I see a pair of emotionally stunted scallys, a Scottish sociopath fantasist, and a Glaswegian psychopath bully attempting to disguise his true nature.

It seems to me more likely that the source of protection originated with apron wearing Brown, who was constantly seeking to score points off Bliar and project himself as a caring parent in order to boost his dubious appeal to the electorate.

By the time Brown realised he could lose votes be tarnished by association with the McCanns, a considerable number of influential people had climbed aboard the good ship FindMadeleine.com and it had left the dock.

However, I place ultimate responsibility for this debacle on all of Bliar's lavish doorsteps as he used the top office of the UK to create an environment in which lies, and liars, flourished and the truth rarely saw the light of day.

With all that Bliar had to divest himself of in order to reinvent himself as a man of peace, it's little wonder he converted to Catholicism and any man in a frock who has to sit in the confessional listening to the ravings of monoTone, and his equally deluded other half, has my deepest sympathy.

Overall I see Teflon Tony as a slicker and somewhat more upmarket version of Geoffrey Archer, but with a considerably less fragrant spouse.

I actually think that this case is more about the press and its regulation than party politics.

juliet wrote:IIRC when Yvonne Martin talked to the mccanns (and before Payne interfered and got her away) KM talked about a "couple" taking the child.

Yes, this never got the airtime it deserved did it?

Add that to the alleged "soothing couple" and Madeleine;s "why didn't you come when I cried" AND the "they've taken her".

And IF this is what the focus of the Crimewatch appeal is going to be about, then the ONLY conclusion we can come to is that the McCanns KNOW who is supposed to have whisked Madeleine off and have decided , for reasons known only to themselves, not to actually say so in public for 6 years, but have instead spent their time raising money and poking into matters of no concern to them.

But then we always come back to those pesky dogs, don't we?

Has anyone read this?



"But requests to film the youngster’s bedroom, which has not been changed since she ­vanished, or inside their home were turned down".

I take this to mean the McCann's home and not the apartment

Not very obliging, are they? So strange.



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

Where are the Crimewatch progs. normally filmed?

Why film them at BBC Cardiff, I always thought they were filmed in England?

In the Daily Mirror article Sallyp it says that requests to show Maddie's bedroom were turned down.  Probably her bedroom in Rothley as the article says the bedroom has remained unchanged since Maddie went missing six years ago.

Why would Maddie's bedroom in Rothley be shown?

I just don't know what to think of this programme.

@ Tigger, we shouldn't forget that Booth also announced that their youngest was probably concieved in Buck House.   Nearly Royalty then!!!!!

plebgate wrote:Where are the Crimewatch progs. normally filmed?

Why film them at BBC Cardiff, I always thought they were filmed in England?

In the Daily Mirror article Sallyp it says that requests to show Maddie's bedroom were turned down.  Probably her bedroom in Rothley as the article says the bedroom has remained unchanged since Maddie went missing six years ago.

Why would Maddie's bedroom in Rothley be shown?

I just don't know what to think of this programme.

Well, Kate has always said that Madeleine's bedroom hasn't changed since the day see went to Portugal. Maybe it's another one of KM's lies

sallypelt wrote:

Thus, at the beginning of June, she informed us that the body could have been hidden in the outlet of a sewer pipe at Praia da Luz, or on the cliffs to the west of the beach, where she happened to run. She will say later that this information had been given to her by mediums possessing psychic power.request.

I never knew Kate had said that. Is that why GM and someone else was searching along the beach? How can the McCanns claim Madeleine is alive after Kate saying where her body may be found. I don't believe a psychic told her that.

sallypelt wrote:

plebgate wrote:Where are the Crimewatch progs. normally filmed?

Why film them at BBC Cardiff, I always thought they were filmed in England?

In the Daily Mirror article Sallyp it says that requests to show Maddie's bedroom were turned down.  Probably her bedroom in Rothley as the article says the bedroom has remained unchanged since Maddie went missing six years ago.

Why would Maddie's bedroom in Rothley be shown?

I just don't know what to think of this programme.

Well, Kate has always said that Madeleine's bedroom hasn't changed since the day see went to Portugal. Maybe it's another one of KM's lies

Yes that's a point Sallyp, but wouldn't the SY know already if it was.  Surely they would have asked to see the room before now?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

juliet wrote:IIRC when Yvonne Martin talked to the mccanns (and before Payne interfered and got her away) KM talked about a "couple" taking the child.

Yes, this never got the airtime it deserved did it?

Add that to the alleged "soothing couple" and Madeleine;s "why didn't you come when I cried" AND the "they've taken her".

And IF this is what the focus of the Crimewatch appeal is going to be about, then the ONLY conclusion we can come to is that the McCanns KNOW who is supposed to have whisked Madeleine off and have decided , for reasons known only to themselves, not to actually say so in public for 6 years, but have instead spent their time raising money and poking into matters of no concern to them.

But then we always come back to those pesky dogs, don't we?

Add to that list the 'several postcard' type photo's of M ready to hand out a couple of hours after she went missing.
The relatives giving up full time jobs to focus on the 'fighting fund'. Fighting what exactly?
The clip of GM laughing and joking on the balcony (unaware he was being filmed) a few days after. No grief, never any grief.

What better way to leapfrog the social and political ladder than to be seen constantly in the public eye campaigning for this and that. Wasn't GM looking for some position within the Labour Party?

The evidence points in one direction and in all probability this is the right direction, yet, I can't help but wonder.
Is M living with people known to the McCann's ?A relative? A close friend? 
Was this whole saga only ever a money making scam?

Hicks wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

juliet wrote:IIRC when Yvonne Martin talked to the mccanns (and before Payne interfered and got her away) KM talked about a "couple" taking the child.

Yes, this never got the airtime it deserved did it?

Add that to the alleged "soothing couple" and Madeleine;s "why didn't you come when I cried" AND the "they've taken her".

And IF this is what the focus of the Crimewatch appeal is going to be about, then the ONLY conclusion we can come to is that the McCanns KNOW who is supposed to have whisked Madeleine off and have decided , for reasons known only to themselves, not to actually say so in public for 6 years, but have instead spent their time raising money and poking into matters of no concern to them.

But then we always come back to those pesky dogs, don't we?

Add to that list the 'several postcard' type photo's of M ready to hand out a couple of hours after she went missing.
The relatives giving up full time jobs to focus on the 'fighting fund'. Fighting what exactly?
The clip of GM laughing and joking on the balcony (unaware he was being filmed) a few days after. No grief, never any grief.

What better way to leapfrog the social and political ladder than to be seen constantly in the public eye campaigning for this and that. Wasn't GM looking for some position within the Labour Party?

The evidence points in one direction and in all probability this is the right direction, yet, I can't help but wonder.
Is M living with people known to the McCann's ?A relative? A close friend? 
Was this whole saga only ever a money making scam?

This is the reason I came to this forum. 

In as much as anyone who's not in possession of all of the facts/evidence can, I've looked at this case from every angle and, in common with some 80% of the UK's population, I'm not convinced the McCanns are blameless.

I prefer to incline to the view that Madeleine is not missing, and never has been, and that for reasons known only to themselves, and to those few who need to know, her parents reached an accomodation with another party/or parties for her to live elsewhere, but should this be the case, and should the net truly be closing in as purported in the press, Madeleine's life may be in great danger.

Just when I think I've made my mind up, in common with juliet's machinations, up pops a vision of Eddie and Keela with their keen warm noses and eagerness to work, and I'm convinced that the child died in 5A as a direct result of one or other of her parents' actions, following which event her body was concealed or otherwise disposed of by them with a little help from one or more of their friends/relatives.   

Either way, given the McCanns' behaviour throughout, we are looking at a pair of callous, calculating, and cold-hearted individuals and, in the event that Madeleine is found alive, I'll be first in line to campaign against her being returned to them.

Portugal aren't showing the reconstruction programme,was it their decision really?
It was The  Mccanns who didn't want it filmed there, anyway.

If Portugal  were to show it, the Portuguese know the files they know more about the case and they'd surely complain that the reconstruction is not correct maybe.

Seek truth wrote:Portugal aren't showing the reconstruction programme,was it their decision really?
It was The  Mccanns who didn't want it filmed there, anyway.

If Portugal  were to show it, the Portuguese know the files they know more about the case and they'd surely complain that the reconstruction is not correct maybe.

A valid question imo Seek truth.

plebgate wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Portugal aren't showing the reconstruction programme,was it their decision really?
It was The  Mccanns who didn't want it filmed there, anyway.

If Portugal  were to show it, the Portuguese know the files they know more about the case and they'd surely complain that the reconstruction is not correct maybe.

A valid question imo Seek truth.

There's some mention of this on one of the other threads - I'll link if I find it.

As far as I recall, it's claimed that none of the Portuguese broadcasters have expressed any interest in showing it which, given the level of public interest in the ongoing libel trial, I find hard to believe.

I do not understand the laws in Portugal. I imagine that the Mcs  managed to film their own documentary there as it was them and media involved.
  This one has the involvement of a foreign police force, so  maybe it brings up all kinds of problems.

 I would also imagine that cut into the Spanish episodes of eating and drinking there will be photos of OC and its environs with distances and times shown on screen showing us who did what and when

If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not  

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not  

The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand. 

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.

ultimaThule wrote:

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not  

The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand. 

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.

According to reports, Kate applied under her maiden name so I doubt that will be an option. It's either both or neither IMO.

Still no doctor being called to provide the necessary medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

Tony Bennett wrote:Still no doctor being called to provide the necessary medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

Yes exactly.

That's a bit of a major omission on the part of the prosecution ...... which I'm sure the judge has noted.

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not  

ShuBob, very well said. I hadn't think of that.  On their last interview together, the McCanns told that the Yard was close to what happened.
Gerry told about the many pieces of the puzzle, he said that the Yard was close to, while they still were "miles and miles away", a proof they don't know what is going on.

Tony Bennett wrote:Still no doctor being called to provide the necessay medical evidence to support the claims of serious and permanent depression, indefinable fear, anxiety, insomnia etc.?

I wonder why?  As it can't be because they don't know any shrinks, GPs, clinical psychologists, etc, or can easily obtain referrals to the best professional help, I'm forced to conclude that K&G don't want to share their secrets alleviate their alleged ailments.   

What manner of lawyer would advise a client seeking huge punitive damages for serious/permanent depression, tramautic stress, insomnia, panic attacks, emotional suffering, etc, to wing it without so much as providing evidence of a prescription for sleepers or anti-d's?  One who was supremely confident of success or one whose client believes they walk on water have no need to provide any tangible proof of their claims as their word should be taken as gospel?

I suspect it came as something of a horrible shock to TM when Dr Amaral and his co-defendants didn't immediately cave hand over all their worldly possessions when K&G's writs were served on them.

ShuBob wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

ShuBob wrote:If the SY investigation is really going the McCanns' way, will they really request now to be heard at their libel trial? I somehow think not  

The requests have been made, signed, sealed, and delivered to the judge and it's up to her to determine whether she'll allow Dr Amaral and/or K&G to take the stand. 

Given the transcripts to date, I can't see any reason why the judge would want or need to hear testimony from any party other than the remaining witnesses.

On the other hand she may decide to hear them all or take the view that, as either McCann's testimony is unlikely to materially differ from the other, she'll allow one of them and Dr Amaral to speak.

According to reports, Kate applied under her maiden name so I doubt that will be an option. It's either both or neither IMO.

The fact they have filed using different surnames is irrevelant as it is known to the court that K&G are married to each other and they are enjoined as Plaintiffs together with the children of the marriage in a single action - if this were not the case, they would have each called their own witnesses to substantiate whatever part of their individual claim differed from the whole.

The judge is free to say yay or nay to either or both of them and her decision is what K&G and Dr Amaral will be required to abide by.

Still 5 days left and what will happen?


I pray we will not see things we have seen a 1000 times.  It seems that Portugal will not broadcast Crimewatch, a window of opportunily for the McCanns, to use that as an excuse to protect them somehow.
Perhaps not.  We have to wait.

A big chunk of the 'Review of Today's Papers' on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme just now (6.40am - will come up on 'Listen Again' later) was devoted to stories in the Mirror and Express about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Presenter John Humphreys summed up the coverage by saying that 'Kate McCann was desperate to give evidence in her own defence' and that she hoped to win the case agaisnn Dr Goncalo Amaral in two separate ways:

1. By quoting to the judge 'new evidence' which DCI Andy Redwood and his Operation Grange team would be supplying via the BBC Crimewatch programme on Monday [14 October]

and

2. By making a heartbreaking, emotional appeal to the judge - which would help sway the judge's opinion.

(not the exact words, but that was the gist).

It's not often that the BBC intervenes on one side of a court case in Portugal.