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

by bristow 14.10.13 22:49

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.

by Lance De Boils 14.10.13 22:49

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.

by littlepixie 14.10.13 22:50

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?

by Guest 14.10.13 22:50

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!

by Ribisl 14.10.13 22:51

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.

by endgame 14.10.13 22:52

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.

by Shrike 14.10.13 22:52

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!

by nobodythereeither 14.10.13 22:53

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.

by stillsloppingout 14.10.13 22:53

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 !!! '

by russiandoll 14.10.13 22:53

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.

by MoonGoddess 14.10.13 22:54

Siennafoxy wrote:
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.

can I ask what you think of this?

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

by Guest 14.10.13 22:54

bristow wrote: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.

That struck me too. I would like to think it was a trap but looks unlikely now.

by tiredofthebs 14.10.13 22:54

littlepixie wrote: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?

I would feel relieved that the police were helping in the cover up.

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?

Relieved that the police were helping me convince the public that the man was someone else.

by Woofer 14.10.13 22:55

Found it -

Peter Mac trying to open the shutters of 5A

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

by ProfessorPPlum 14.10.13 22:57

littlepixie wrote: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?

Interesting questions, littlepixie

by littlepixie 14.10.13 22:58

tiredofthebs wrote:
littlepixie wrote: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?

I would feel relieved that the police were helping in the cover up.

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?

Relieved that the police were helping me convince the public that the man was someone else.

Littlepixiesaid
That was my first thought too, that it was a whitewash, but after a bit of thought and seeing how ill and weak Gerry McCann looks recently I am beginning to wonder.

by scrants 14.10.13 22:59

Redwood seems to have an odd idea of a planned abduction if the perpetrator is wandering around on foot instead of jumping into a nearby car and driving off to his evil lair!

This programme could well be called The Kate and Gerry Show. It was an absolute disgrace and the BBC should be ashamed of themselves.

by loopzdaloop 14.10.13 23:01

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.

The Met believe this set of coincidences?

I don't buy that.

I think it was ruled out intentionally to test the mccanns resolve as it was a key part of their story.

by Guest 14.10.13 23:02

Did he say it was a pre-planned abduction with them maybe being watched etc. What abductor would walk around such a distance carrying a child? And what burglar would take a child?

by Ribisl 14.10.13 23:02

I'd like to think SY and Andy Redwood withheld certain elements in this 'reconstruction' because the main purpose of the programme was to draw people's attention to Smiths' sighting and to try to identify the man in question. This is not the McCann agenda at all. They are trying to find out where Madeleine was taken - dead or alive.

Some of the things intentionally omitted in Crimewatch but hugely significant in this investigation imo:
David Payne
Eddie and Keela
Cleaners

by tiredofthebs 14.10.13 23:02

Everyone from Leicestershire Police to Gordon Brown has been whitewashing this for 6 years, why would they stop now?

In fact, the longer this goes on, the more whitewashing there will be. They aren't just covering the McCann's arses now, they are covering their own.

I have long believed that this case has an organised paedo element, especially since the Savile revelations. This is bigger than the McCanns and they will, IMO, be protected until the day they die and probably longer.

Sad, but true.

I would love this to be a trap an the McCanns to be arrested. But I am being realistic.

Please do not alter names I have edited the name.

by Nereid 14.10.13 23:03

I'm trying not to lose heart.

What I got from this:

1. JT sighting discounted. 8 families with 11 children had booked night crèche that night. One of them was the man she saw, walking back with his 2 y/o
    child to his apartment. His child had similar pyamas as Madeleine.

2. Blonde/fair haired man spotted twice on path and somewhere else looking at 5Ga (seen this in PJ files somewhere by girl whose grandmother used to
     live in 5Ga); 2 men spotted at 5C (2 doors down from McCanns). One spotted in stairwell. At 11.00pm (?) 2 men seen. Conclusion: possible pre-
     planned abduction. Men were doing reconnaissance.

3. From January upto Madeleine's disappearance there was a spate of burglaries. 3 weeks prior there were 2 where windows were used to gain access.
     Did Madeleine disturb burglar?

4. Charity collections. On 3 May from 3.30 to 5.30 pm. At 4pm man with black hair collecting for charity.

5. At 10pm sighting of white man with brown hair carrying a blonde child in pyamas. See 2 e-fits by 2 different person of this man.

I never believed JT's sighting. But I also don't believe how they made it go away by having a man coming forward after 6 years!

From the above I think the only credible one is 5. The Smith sighting!

by tedless 14.10.13 23:03

Re the JT sighting could she have come forward and suggested she had been mistaken at the time hence the new witness enabling them to forget her sighting. It just seems so odd to me that this person would still have or remember their child's pyjamas on that evening but would not have thought to come forward in 6 years.

by MoonGoddess 14.10.13 23:03

scrants wrote:Redwood seems to have an odd idea of a planned abduction if the perpetrator is wandering around on foot instead of jumping into a nearby car and driving off to his evil lair!

This programme could well be called The Kate and Gerry Show. It was an absolute disgrace and the BBC should be ashamed of themselves.

and how comes Madeleine was in a "deep sleep"?..... because we know she'd be giving them her "tuppence worth"!!

by mahlersghost 14.10.13 23:04

It has now been suggested Madeleine was abducted a few minutes before her mother raised the alert at 10pm on May 3, 2007.
Last night’s appeal focused on two previously unreleased computer e-fit images of a man seen carrying a child 400 yards from the McCanns’ holiday apartment at this time.
The suspect was seen by an Irish family from Co Louth. Martin Smith, who was holidaying with his wife and two children – and other family members – said the man was carrying a child along a deserted side street and that she was blonde with ‘typically British’ skin. She was also wearing similar pyjamas to those worn by Maddie.
The account of Mr Smith, who provided details for one of the e-fits, has been called into question because he initially told investigators the suspect walked and looked like Madeleine’s father Gerry McCann. But British police say they are certain Mr McCann had absolutely nothing to do with his daughter’s disappearance

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by mouse 14.10.13 23:05

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

No surprises - Kevin Maguire is, or was, actually still is a very good friend of Gordon Browne, and was very close to all that was going on when Damien McBride was closely installed at No 10. I wonder what Mr Smeargate (McBride) knows as to the Mccann story - perhaps that could be his next book.

by Guest 14.10.13 23:06

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!

me too......it was too poor to be anything else

by tiredofthebs 14.10.13 23:06

mahlersghost wrote:It has now been suggested Madeleine was abducted a few minutes before her mother raised the alert at 10pm on May 3, 2007.
Last night’s appeal focused on two previously unreleased computer e-fit images of a man seen carrying a child 400 yards from the McCanns’ holiday apartment at this time.
The suspect was seen by an Irish family from Co Louth. Martin Smith, who was holidaying with his wife and two children – and other family members – said the man was carrying a child along a deserted side street and that she was blonde with ‘typically British’ skin. She was also wearing similar pyjamas to those worn by Maddie.
The account of Mr Smith, who provided details for one of the e-fits, has been called into question because he initially told investigators the suspect walked and looked like Madeleine’s father Gerry McCann. But British police say they are certain Mr McCann had absolutely nothing to do with his daughter’s disappearance

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How exactly are they certain of this?????

by Woofer 14.10.13 23:06

russiandoll wrote: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.

I won`t watch Sky anymore - they are one of the worst for running the Portuguese down - they get loads wrong, twist things and are constantly biased against Amaral to the point of rudeness. It must come from Murdoch.