CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 1 DISCUSSION****

Stand out points for me:_

Kirsty Young:- "Cast your pre-conceptions aside." (as in, cast aside what K and G have been saying and writing for 6 long years??)
AR: - Speculation to be "cast aside" (as in , never form an opinion on what you have repeatedly been told is the truth because truth is kinda bendy)
Matthew Amraliwala : - "was abducted" (as in what we've been trying to din into you stubborn public for 6 years but you keep finding problems with it)
AR : - "The e-fits are clear"  (not to  me they're not, mate. Unless one of them is really MB)
AR : - "The hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction" (what are those hallmarks please?)
AR : - MBM "may have disturbed a burglar" ( as in - I won't leg it just yet, I'll pick up this kid now she's awake) 
AR : -  Four charity workers  - yawn.

"Yes dear, do pour me that second glass of wine." That's me talking in mood indigo to my OH!

Any Redwood just said It's really interesting to us because the man took the route to the sea or (something) and not the quick route out of town.

Words to that effect.

JackieL wrote:

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.

I don't buy that either. Whoever could be bothered to produce some T-shirts with 'I don't buy that' on would make a small fortune right now.

I didn't watch the programme, I followed it via this forum. I found myself afterwards thinking 'I'm ashamed to be British'. Then it occurred to me that, wait a minute: I've brought up kids successfully and lovingly and never left them alone or lost any of them. I haven't lied for 6 years or conned money out of people for a non-existent search or hired the most notorious libel bullies in the Western world to silence my critics. So, actually, I have nothing to be ashamed of about this case. What I am is demoralised. 

And actually, I am a little ashamed. I'm ashamed that I will get up tomorrow and go meekly off to work instead of storming the BBC, busting into Parliament, picketing outside NSY or in some other way mounting a protest against this disgusting media-perversion of justice. 

Yes, produce Creche Man. We should demand it. As evidence of value-for-money for our £5m (or whatever it has cost us so far). 

Show us Creche Man! Now!

candyfloss wrote:

Cristobell wrote:So the guy who suddenly remembered he picked his child up at around the time of the Jane Tanner sighting, has allowed the 'search' to go awry for 6.5 years?  He should be prosecuted!  (if he exists which I v.much doubt).  Whatever, there should be creche records to substantiate his story, he has quite a bit of explaining to do!


Can I take this opportunity to plug my blog, lots of McCann stuff. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wouldn't the nanny's have mentioned when questioned later, that a man left with a child in pyjamas?  They would have had all the names of the children there.

Surely all the children in the creche would be leaving in pyjamas? If you couldn't drop off till 7.30 then you'd want your kids ready for bed so you could just put them straight in their bed as soon as they get back to the apartment.

russiandoll wrote:Twitter alive now slating GA for not checking out parents using the night crèche on 3rd.

 No criticism of that man not coming forward with info , unlike Smith.

 He came forward after years though, just in time for this programme.

 How convenient.

 I wonder what Kate and Gerry's faces were like when Redwood told them...

  "Do you know Mr and Mrs, that very night at that very time your mate was in the street.......a girl similar in size and age to your Madeleine who was wearing almost identical pjs, was being taken by her Dad right past your place !!  Just before M  disappeared.  Would you believe it ?! "
  Oh and I forgot to tell you, he remembered the exact clothes he wore on one night of a holiday 6 years ago.
 Incredible, innit ?

That's no surprise Russiandoll. Goncalo Amaral wanted to bring the Smith family back to Portugal but he was removed from the case within days of Martin Smith's call to the PJ (who recognised the man as Gerry McCann). Paulo Rebelo took over but did not follow it up, maybe he was under pressure not to do so.

The Truth of the Lie
Goncalo Amaral
Chapter 20

AN IRISH FAMILY IN A STATE OF SHOCK.

The McCann couple return to Great Britain after more than four months spent in the Algarve. It's an almost triumphant return. The media coverage is such that you'd think you were witnessing the liberation of hostages held for years in a far-off country. Gerald McCann is shown on television carrying his son, as he descends from the plane. The child's head is against Gerald's left shoulder and his arms dangling by his sides. Gerald walks across the tarmac, still holding his son closely against himself.

In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it's a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking...It's the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.

This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. It's as if the scene is repeating itself ....Mr Smith thinking he's hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.

When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach.

We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.

candyfloss wrote:Any Redwood just said It's really interesting to us because the man took the route to the sea or (something) and not the quick route out of town.

Words to that effect.

Not an escape route, something like that.

PeterMac wrote:No timeline
No entry
No exit
No MO
No dogs
No sedation
No motive
No means
No opportunity
No reconstruction

It is a trap !
And they have walked right into it.

Keep going PeterMac, you're keeping me from killing myself. Thank you. And since you're the most qualified here, I'm going with whatever you say :-)

Well there is a programme called points of view to air any grievances.

Absolutely no information given on the update, Redwood more or less said the same as he did in the first programme.

BBC: "All the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction"


Madeleine McCann: 'Hallmarks of pre-planned abduction', police say

[PHOTO: Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said that Madeleine could have been abducted later than first thought]


Police say one reading of Madeleine McCann's disappearance in Portugal in 2007 is that it has "all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction".

Scotland Yard detectives have also said they are looking at burglaries and charity collectors in the area.

Earlier, detectives released two e-fits of a man seen carrying a child towards the beach on 3 May 2007.

But they have ruled out a previous sighting of another man by a friend.

Madeleine was three when she disappeared from her parents' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007.

Police have been revealing their latest findings in the search for Madeleine McCann on BBC One's Crimewatch programme.

Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood, the senior Metropolitan Police investigating officer, said a number of men had been seen by witnesses in the area on the day Madeleine vanished and one theory was they could have been carrying out reconnaissance.

Officers said a man seen carrying a child by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm was now believed to be an innocent British holiday maker collecting his two-year-old daughter from a nearby creche.

Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.

"It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms," he said.

Earlier, detectives releasing the e-fit image said a family saw the man with a blond-haired child of three or four, possibly wearing pyjamas, heading away from the McCanns' holiday apartment.

The witnesses said the man was white, 20 to 40 years old and of medium build. He had short brown hair, was clean-shaven and of medium height, they added.

Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood said he could be the man who took Madeleine from her parents' holiday home but there could be an innocent explanation.

Speaking during a new appeal aired on BBC Crimewatch, Kate McCann described the moment "panic kicked in" when she saw Madeleine was missing.

The Portuguese police who were originally investigating Madeleine's disappearance shelved the investigation in 2008.

Scotland Yard began a review of the case in May 2011 and opened a formal investigation in July this year.

As a result, according to the police, the timeline and "accepted version of events" surrounding Madeleine's disappearance have significantly changed.

Det Ch Insp Redwood said he was now attaching more weight to the sighting of the man and the child at 10pm, which was later than the time it was previously believed Madeleine was taken.

Madeleine and her brother and sister were left in the apartment at 8.30pm while her parents dined with friends at a nearby restaurant. Her father, Gerry McCann, checked on them at 9.05pm and her mother, Kate, raised the alarm at 10pm.

scrants wrote:If Bundleman was, in fact a parent taking his child home from the creche, why was he walking in the direction he was when you consider where the night crech was.  He was going on a very circuitous route! And why has it taken 6 years to find him?

Good point, must check this out.

Looks like judge in libel case knew about this going on, is this why they're not starting until November now?

Burglars,  charity collectors, men whispering suspiciously................Yawn, yawn, yawn.

Bundleman dumped cos he doesn't fit the timeline, sorry, cos after SIX years, some guy's come forward and said that actually it was him all along, taking his daughter back (via an odd route) from the creche.

Names please, Andy Redwood.

After watching this non reconstruction tonight it is clear to me that this programme was 'carter rucked' prior to being aired hence no mention of David/Fiona Payne and Diane Webster and no mention of the important points such as exit/entry points , shutters etc.

Yes, Redwood said that was ONE reading of it.

 Can someone please remind me what if anything was said about MO check at 9.30 and was it stated he saw twins but not M?

russiandoll wrote:

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.

  read my posts. I do not believe in an abduction. Is the only alternative that her parents killed her then? No chance of a covered= up accident as theorised by Goncalo Amaral?
 Glad to be ignored by a mind like that.

 btw how dare you use "WE" speaking for this forum when making such a claim. If it is your belief, say so.

russiandoll wrote:

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.

  read my posts. I do not believe in an abduction. Is the only alternative that her parents killed her then? No chance of a covered= up accident as theorised by Goncalo Amaral?
 Glad to be ignored by a mind like that.

 btw how dare you use "WE" speaking for this forum when making such a claim. If it is your belief, say so.

I agree with you - but unfortunately we're in the minority & amongst a lynch mob at it's worst. I came to this site seeking the truth but I am faced with unpleasant name calling at the McCanns & vile, nasty comments & unpleasant photos that only discredit this site but take away from it's integrity - how can one take you seriously?? These people have made up their minds & no reasoning will have any affect - I am astounded that groups like these exist & probably are more of a hinderence to the investigation rather than any help. These people have found a nice comfortable spot on the Internet to openly share their hate & it makes them feel good. Take away this site and they have nothing, just empty lives with no purpose & lack of meaning - I feel so much pity for them.
They so far have appeared so self righteous like they were present & witnessed the parents murdering Madeleine - were u? I wasn't there & I have remained open to any outcome but this site tries & forces people to think like them & if you don't, well as one reply said - ah an abduction believer I'll just pop you on ignore...
I have also noticed they twist things that are said by the parents to fit in with their one-sided theories. I have read it all & watched the documentary of that desperate detective making a total fool of himself - he says there were 2 different sightings of a man carrying a child in 2 diff places - well 1 of them has now been explained ! There were a lot of information from the public but unfortunately not followed through by the pathetic Portugal police because they were simply  inadequate - hence the book & documentary to save face - yes it's that simple & that's the motive - as well as to make money!
This group sadely has let Madeleine down - by trying to fit the patents to the crime which is the no.1 mistake to make when finding justice.

Must say I can't get over the likeness of the Smith sighting man, dead ringer for GM, they showed half his face but you could see without a doubt who it was!

I don't know what to think, I'm swinging from whitewash to trap.

What the HELL is going on?
In the update, Redwood has just shown the pic of "stairwell man with sunglasses", saying he's released the efit tonight and asking who he is.

IT'S IN THE FILES! HE WAS IDENTIFIED ALREADY!

I am somewhere between dumbfounded and hopping mad.

This can't be for real.

If you KNEW you had fabricated seeing a man carrying off Maddie (Jane Tanner) and now the Police have told you they have found the non-existent man how would you feel?

If you KNEW a witness had seen you disposing of your child and now the Police were looking for that man and had asked you on to Crimewatch to help find him, how would you feel?

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

PeterMac wrote:No timeline
No entry
No exit
No MO
No dogs
No sedation
No motive
No means
No opportunity
No reconstruction

It is a trap !
And they have walked right into it.

Keep going PeterMac, you're keeping me from killing myself. Thank you. And since you're the most qualified here, I'm going with whatever you say :-)

  That's how I feel too!

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

JackieL wrote:

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.

I don't buy that either. Whoever could be bothered to produce some T-shirts with 'I don't buy that' on would make a small fortune right now.

I didn't watch the programme, I followed it via this forum. I found myself afterwards thinking 'I'm ashamed to be British'. Then it occurred to me that, wait a minute: I've brought up kids successfully and lovingly and never left them alone or lost any of them. I haven't lied for 6 years or conned money out of people for a non-existent search or hired the most notorious libel bullies in the Western world to silence my critics. So, actually, I have nothing to be ashamed of about this case. What I am is demoralised. 

And actually, I am a little ashamed. I'm ashamed that I will get up tomorrow and go meekly off to work instead of storming the BBC, busting into Parliament, picketing outside NSY or in some other way mounting a protest against this disgusting media-perversion of justice. 

Yes, produce Creche Man. We should demand it. As evidence of value-for-money for our £5m (or whatever it has cost us so far). 

Show us Creche Man! Now!

If I didn't know better I might have thought SY have fabricated evidence in order to discount JT's sighting so all the focus could now turn to Smiths' sighting.

I think people are missing the point slightly with Bundleman. No one ever believed that he was the abductor anyway. He was never a serious suspect in the PJ investigation. He was only useful in the sense that he was a clear demonstration that the McCanns and Tapas 9 were lying. The fact that Redwood now says that Bundleman was an innocent passer by changes absolutely nothing. There is still no evidence of an abduction. Where is the evidence? All he has done is change one bogeyman for another who seems even less likely than the first one. The only thing that makes him suspicious is that he was a man in the street carrying a child late at night. That doesn't add up to a can of beans. What ii does do is build a much bigger window of opportunity for an abduction. I would imagine that filling that window with more made up stories will be Redwood's next task. The PJ's evidence, the McCann lies and everything else still remains as intact as they ever were and will remain so for ever I suspect.

scrants wrote:If Bundleman was, in fact a parent taking his child home from the creche, why was he walking in the direction he was when you consider where the night crech was.  He was going on a very circuitous route! And why has it taken 6 years to find him?

 But surely the Tanner sighting was a problem for SY as they are obviously wanting to focus in on the Smith sighting. This gives them an easy way to dismiss part of the Mccanns' story. Will the Mccann's come forward and tell SY that BundleCrecheMan was taking an unlikely circuitous route? I don't think so.

I truly hope this is a way of pinning this Smith sighting onto somebody the public know very well and also who people in the area at the time might remember. If they call in they may be asked by SY, "do you remember anything particular about the trousers?". They are, after all, very distinctive and i for one would notice the buttons straightaway.

I'm hoping that Petermac is right about the trap (guess he knows how these things can work), but then I might also be clutching at straws. Sure things will unfold in the coming weeks. I just found it weird that this CW gave us nothing new (except for dismissing the JT thing), and that very important events and people critical to the timelines were left out. More about what was left out than kept in that seems interesting as others have already said!

admin wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

PeterMac wrote:No timeline
No entry
No exit
No MO
No dogs
No sedation
No motive
No means
No opportunity
No reconstruction

It is a trap !
And they have walked right into it.

Keep going PeterMac, you're keeping me from killing myself. Thank you. And since you're the most qualified here, I'm going with whatever you say :-)

  That's how I feel too!

Well I wish I felt like that, but I still can't see what this trap is which PeterMac thinks they have walked into! DUH.

Lance De Boils wrote:What the HELL is going on?
In the update, Redwood has just shown the pic of "stairwell man with sunglasses", saying he's released the efit tonight and asking who he is.

IT'S IN THE FILES! HE WAS IDENTIFIED ALREADY!

I am somewhere between dumbfounded and hopping mad.

This can't be for real.

Can somebody look up the files and name him, post the name and the pic to ALL national media and the CW offices inc SY and include ' nice try Andy must try harder !!! '

Here now on Sky..Kevin Maguire,.a man I usually enjoy listening to, spoke recently and is speaking now insulting PJ work.

 Did the Tanner sighting send everyone down the wrong route?

 Yes was the answer, The PJ botched the investigation.

 THE BLOODY PJ DIDNT GIVE ANY CREDENCE TO THE SIGHTING.