Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 1 DISCUSSION****

by JackieL 14.10.13 22:00

tasprin wrote:What was the revelation? Was it that they've been living off a fake sighting for the past six years? Yes.
Bundleman was a fantasy then. Yes What was that special technique used by 'forensic artist' Melissa Little to improve Jane Tanner's memory? Imagination? Yes

by Lance De Boils 14.10.13 22:00

I'm so gobsmacked. I don't know what to say. I feel like I've just arrived here from another galaxy.

Effin' hell!

by Guest 14.10.13 22:00

OpenMind wrote:Utterly ridiculous

Only thing I wasn't aware of was the night creche, or have I not done my homework?

Yes, this is mentioned in Kate's book. She claims that the reason she didn't use it is because it opened (I think) at 7.30 by which time her children were already asleep.

It would not be at all unusual to see parents walking around carrying tired children back to their apartments.

Congratulations to everyone (me included surprisingly) who managed to get through the programme without hurling the TV through the window.

I retain a vague hope that the police are lulling the McCanns into a sense of false security.

by MoonGoddess 14.10.13 22:02

BBC News got a Jimmy Saville story straight after Madeleine story...... #justsaying

by statsman 14.10.13 22:03

There was a night creche. Here is Jes Wilkins' partner writing about it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"In the evenings, babysitting at the resort was a dilemma. "Sit-in" babysitters were available but were expensive and in demand, and Mark Warner blurb advised us to book well in advance. The other option was the babysitting service at the kiddie club, which was a 10-minute walk from the apartment. The children would watch a cartoon together and then be put to bed. You would then wake them, carry them back and put them to bed again in the apartment. After taking our children to dinner a couple of times, we decided on the Wednesday night to try the service at the club.
...
My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up. I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant. He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket. The next night we stayed in."

But she also writes...

"Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys."

Is NSY seriously saying that the PJ ignored chasing them up? I really can't believe it.

by Guest 14.10.13 22:03

I'm in shock, what a total and utter waste of time and money.....they called that a reconstruction. Hyped up all week, and we have nothing new, we knew about the charity workers, we knew about Smith. As for Jane Tanner, ah well she did see a man carrying a child, so that's alright then, just some poor bloke, who despite 6 years of publicity has never come forward.

It's just on News at Ten.......top item!!

by Pennypennypenny 14.10.13 22:03

So many different suspects and scenario's. it's like they are making it as confusing and misleading as possible. And the doctors

by Lance De Boils 14.10.13 22:04

They (Crimewatch/BBC) can't be allowed to get away with that, surely? Well, I, for one, will be sending in a complaint about the reporting and coverage of this case. Absolutely appalling and sub-standard.

by Guest 14.10.13 22:04

Lance De Boils wrote:I'm so gobsmacked. I don't know what to say. I feel like I've just arrived here from another galaxy.

Effin' hell!

Yep, me too. Unbelievable.

by russiandoll 14.10.13 22:04

Now let me get this straight :

a man carried a child about Ms age past the location from where M would be abducted a short time later...wearing almost identical pjs.

The Met believe this set of coincidences?

I don't buy that.

by JackieL 14.10.13 22:05

candyfloss wrote:I'm in shock, what a total and utter waste of time and money.....they called that a reconstruction. Hyped up all week, and we have nothing new, we knew about the charity workers, we knew about Smith. As for Jane Tanner, ah well she did see a man carrying a child, so that's alright then, just some poor bloke, who despite 6 years of publicity has never come forward.

It's just on News at Ten.......top item!!

BUMP!!

by Siennafoxy 14.10.13 22:05

tiredofthebs wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Don't speak for me please. There is no evidence that the parents killed her.
Ah an abduction believer. I'll just pop you on ignore.

Very open minded, Madeleine needs needs your help not your stubbornness & judgement just because someone doesn't agree with you - this site is a let down I expected more support to help Madeleine .

by tiredofthebs 14.10.13 22:05

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
OpenMind wrote:Utterly ridiculous

Only thing I wasn't aware of was the night creche, or have I not done my homework?
Yes, this is mentioned in Kate's book. She claims that the reason she didn't use it is because it opened (I think) at 7.30 by which time her children were already asleep.

It would not be at all unusual to see parents walking around carrying tired children back to their apartments.

Congratulations to everyone (me included surprisingly) who managed to get through the programme without hurling the TV through the window.

I retain a vague hope that the police are lulling the McCanns into a sense of false security.

The problem though is that even if the Met fully believe the McCanns are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, they will never be able to prove it unless the McCanns, or their accomplices, confess.

I am not optimistic that that will ever happen.

by Dr What 14.10.13 22:05

Not good, was it! There was more that was left out than put in.

During the 'reconstruction', events were portrayed as 'facts', but they were merely the version from the McCanns.Not 'facts' at all.And no mention of the dogs input.Surely that is a fact worth mentioning.Along with many others.

Wasted opportunity.

by Seek truth 14.10.13 22:06

Kate's tear!!! First time.

Strange it was on the right eye corner and never dried up.

As expected, We should forget about Jane Tanner!!
AND David Payne.

Andy pandy looked weird is his brain normal? No wonder they put him there!

by marxman 14.10.13 22:07

After watching the Crimewatch show I had a WTF moment,
Lots were omitted but other stuff was added.
Tanner a liar and Gerry a liar!
Gerry now in the frame, Smith family sighting now crucial
Night of the long knifes ahead?

by mahlersghost 14.10.13 22:07

How annoying that the night crèche man was carrying a ringer for Madeleine and in the same type of nightwear - and he carried her Frankenstein fashion - and he became even clearer in JT's memory - and he looked like R Murat etc etc - and then he wasn't it appears. Who is this sudden alibi? Like to see him interviewed.

Just seen your post Russiandoll
- I'm agreeing with your reading of this.

by JackieL 14.10.13 22:08

russiandoll wrote:Now let me get this straight :

a man carried a child about Ms age past the location from where M would be abducted a short time later...wearing almost identical pjs. Yep, that's right.

The Met believe this set of coincidences? Yep. And despite all the massive publicity, it's taken him 6 years to come forward.

I don't buy that.

by Guest 14.10.13 22:08

Ye Gods I bet the PJ are doing this lol4

by MoonGoddess 14.10.13 22:09

Does anyone know if it is in the files = the families who used the night crèche that night? were they interviewed by PJ?

by **PeterMac** 14.10.13 22:10

On the rushes we have seen there was a tennis match with Madeleine collecting the balls and the NEW Last Photo - on the wrong day obviously - there was the collection of the people in the Tapas bar - with the McCans sitting the wrong way round, obviously - and there was talk of a new time line for the abduction.

Do they read this blog, I ask myself.
On the programme as sent out there is
No mention of the tennis lesson / match and Last photo we saw on the trailers - perhaps even the CrimeBotch crew could work that one out.
No dwelling on the tapas dinner with the lack of plastic peep-proof sheeting and seating plans - perhaps even the CrimeBotch crew could work that one out.
No mention of the actual "Window of Opportunity" (qv.) perhaps again even the CrimeBotch crew could work that one out.

Anodyne, bland, foolish, televisual, and the result is
DA ! DAH !
Tanner wrong - Smith right - though we have to say possibly, or might be, or could be, or we don't actually know.
He might just be another loving father holding his daughter in a proper manner and taking her home.
In one way it is significant that they made no attempt whatsoever to do a re-construction.
Because of course it is impossible.
Even with their new sighting they still cannot put together a proper 'storyline".

They are stuffed.

by Newintown 14.10.13 22:11

2278 on line now, wow. smilie

2630 registered users as well.

by davidslewgoliath 14.10.13 22:11

2206 users online a minute ago - huge interest in the case now!

by JackieL 14.10.13 22:12

MoonGoddess wrote:Does anyone know if it is in the files = the families who used the night crèche that night? were they interviewed by PJ?

Good question, MoonGoddess. Who IS this guy? Where was he staying? Why was he taking that route? Who is his daughter?

by MoonGoddess 14.10.13 22:12

marxman wrote:After watching the Crimewatch show I had a WTF moment,
Lots were omitted but other stuff was added.
Tanner a liar and Gerry a liar!
Gerry now in the frame, Smith family sighting now crucial
Night of the long knifes ahead?

They're not saying she is a liar, they are saying that who she saw was not an abductor...

by sammyc 14.10.13 22:12

MoonGoddess wrote:BBC News got a Jimmy Saville story straight after Madeleine story...... #justsaying

You beat me to it MoonGoddess. Also the BBC reporter in PdL said the efit of the man they want to question was heading towards the Beach was the man spotted by the Smith family. . Check out the efit and clothes he was described as wearing and it's oh err Gerry? Just asking.

by davidslewgoliath 14.10.13 22:13

Sorry newintown - you got ahead of me there!

by jowie 14.10.13 22:13

onthecase wrote:what a load of tosh!! seriously , was that supposed to be a reconstrustion ??? and who is this holiday maker taking his daughter home from the 'night creche ' did he not see the news and think to himself ' oh that could have been me ' ! utter rubbish no mention of the dogs,
e fit is gerry by the way :

And why haven't SY named him ?? Probably because he doesn't exist. He was probably made up to " fit the scene" !!

by MoonGoddess 14.10.13 22:14

JackieL wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:Does anyone know if it is in the files = the families who used the night crèche that night? were they interviewed by PJ?
Good question, MoonGoddess. Who IS this guy? Where was he staying? Why was he taking that route? Who is his daughter?

I think I might still have a map in my mementoes - I am going to see, so I can show that 'night crèche man' would not be travelling in the direction that Tanner initially said....

by bunglebonce 14.10.13 22:16

PeterMac wrote:On the rushes we have seen there was a tennis match with Madeleine collecting the balls and the NEW Last Photo - on the wrong day obviously - there was the collection of the people in the Tapas bar - with the McCans sitting the wrong way round, obviously - and there was talk of a new time line for the abduction.

Do they read this blog, I ask myself.
On the programme as sent out there is
No mention of the tennis lesson / match and Last photo we saw on the trailers - perhaps even the CrimeBotch crew could work that one out.
No dwelling on the tapas dinner with the lack of plastic peep-proof sheeting and seating plans - perhaps even the CrimeBotch crew could work that one out.
No mention of the actual "Window of Opportunity" (qv.) perhaps again even the CrimeBotch crew could work that one out.

Anodyne, bland, foolish, televisual, and the result is
DA ! DAH !
Tanner wrong - Smith right - though we have to say possibly, or might be, or could be, or we don't actually know.
He might just be another loving father holding his daughter in a proper manner and taking her home.
In one way it is significant that they made no attempt whatsoever to do a re-construction.
Because of course it is impossible.
Even with their new sighting they still cannot put together a proper 'storyline".

They are stuffed.

This rings very true, a great deal (as we know) does not make sense. The reconstruction was so very bland, leaving key elements/people/events that you guys have pointed out, meaning they are possibly awaiting gaps to be filled - or to confirm what has already been noted.

However, not holding breath!