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

by annemab 15.10.13 1:27

candyfloss wrote:
annemab wrote:In most of the trailers I saw yesterday and today, there was a little girl dressed like Maddie in the 'last' photo (the pool one) either playing tennis or collecting tennis balls - but this was not shown on the programme? or did I blink and miss it?
It was, it lasted about 2 seconds..........what it had to do with anything god only knows, except maybe to show it was a happy family holiday.

Thanks Candyfloss, thought I was going mad for a minute there (or 2 seconds at least!) roses

by Shrike 15.10.13 1:28

tedless wrote: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.

Could this be a way of putting the pressure on JT? Putting together this explanation of CrecheMan and his child remembering the pyjamas, way carrying the child etc., could be a proverbial pisstake and way to get to her, pressure and have her crack somewhat? trying to bring positives into all of this, that's all.....

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 1:28

Portia wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
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.]
at least they're reporting it....
Question remains: why are they certain mr McCann had absolutely nothing to do with his daughters disappearance

Which facts support this certainty: where precisely was GM at the time of the Smiths sighting; why did the McCs and their own detectives hide the evidence till caught out by SY just now, why did they never, not one single instant, show any interest/curiosity in this apparent abductor

What now, when Jane Tanner has proved a liar? Or rather, has been called a liar? How will she live on? She has a child, children perhaps; how will they live on, their mother shamed to smitereens by SY and the McCs tonight?

Not nice, all of tonights work, definitely not

I am wishful thinking that they cant exactly come out and say 'yeah we know he did it, we just have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt'.... And I think it highly, highly significant that the Paynes were not named.

Genuine question; does anyone know if KM's face is bottoxed? It looks weird and contorted...

by Truthandjustice 15.10.13 1:29

My overwhelming impression is that the portrayal of the case has not moved forward in 6 years. SY still touting the shutter nonsense that was sold to the media but disproved by the PJ on day 1. It is appalling that the PJ and all the work they did is not being credited at all. That appeal showed that SY have next to nothing and are hoping for some amazing clue to manifest out of thin air.

by MRNOODLES 15.10.13 1:29

Searcher wrote:Portia - my understanding from tonight is that JT saw a child being collected from the night creche - in other words, an innocent but actual sighting. ?

That was soil man. Because when SY said to JT that they'd tracked down her imaginary abductor, she soiled herself.

by Guest 15.10.13 1:31

susible wrote:
annemab wrote:In most of the trailers I saw yesterday and today, there was a little girl dressed like Maddie in the 'last' photo (the pool one) either playing tennis or collecting tennis balls - but this was not shown on the programme? or did I blink and miss it?
No, it wasn't on the programme, also not on the programme was Kate's proclamation of "we've done nothing wrong" changed to "we have not committed a crime" probably due to the backlash of the public...Yeah you did do something wrong"

But you are right, all of these scenes were touted at the start as being part of the programme....Hmmm what's changed I wonder

Yes you are right susible, they CHANGED tonights programme from the trailer from we're not the one's who've done something wrong........

by Ribisl 15.10.13 1:31

russiandoll wrote: ALL THE IMPORTANT STUFF WAS OMITTED. APART FROM SMITH SIGHTING.

That I believe was the whole point of the programme. They want more witnesses to come forward who might have seen ~~Gerry McCann~~ a man taking Madeleine somewhere. By saying that GM is not a suspect, they are making sure of getting unprompted voluntary disclosure.

by Searcher 15.10.13 1:31

However !- and it is a very big 'however! - surely, with all the incessant publicity, the drawings, the e-fits, the news items, the international coverage - surely, the person who was 'innocently collecting their child (in white/pink pyjamas) from the night creche' - would have come forward years ago?? Even as a vaguely aware, responsible citizen, never mind someone who had been staying in the same resort and must surely have had even a tiny twinge of interest in the case.

Or maybe they were just visiting from another dimension. Give me strength. sad

by annemab 15.10.13 1:31

susible wrote:
annemab wrote:In most of the trailers I saw yesterday and today, there was a little girl dressed like Maddie in the 'last' photo (the pool one) either playing tennis or collecting tennis balls - but this was not shown on the programme? or did I blink and miss it?
No, it wasn't on the programme, also not on the programme was Kate's proclamation of "we've done nothing wrong" changed to "we have not committed a crime" probably due to the backlash of the public...Yeah you did do something wrong"

But you are right, all of these scenes were touted at the start as being part of the programme....Hmmm what's changed I wonder

Now you mention it, yes I did notice the change of words as well. Though the tennis girl was in it, we must have both blinked at the same time!

Whatever happened to her, I found the videos of her brought a tear to my eye. Poor little girl.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 1:33

Truthandjustice wrote:My overwhelming impression is that the portrayal of the case has not moved forward in 6 years. SY still touting the shutter nonsense that was sold to the media but disproved by the PJ on day 1. It is appalling that the PJ and all the work they did is not being credited at all. That appeal showed that SY have next to nothing and are hoping for some amazing clue to manifest out of thin air.

You are being too kind to SY.

I suggest that SY KNOW that the McCanns are involved and are actively involved in trying to protect them. It is the only explanation that makes sense.

by Lance De Boils 15.10.13 1:34

Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him! laughat

by mouse 15.10.13 1:34

It appears the daily mail are completely on-message tonight, and I guess that makes me an internet troll because I too think the Mccans should have been prosecuted for leaving 3 children under 5 on their own in a holiday apartment....

Daily Mail article on cruel internet trolls'
"Others cruelly claimed Mr McCann, who has been ruled out of the Scotland Yard investigation, looked like the e-fit images of the force’s new prime suspect.
There were also ‘deeply upsetting’ suggestions from other trolls that the McCanns should be prosecuted for leaving Maddie alone in the family’s holiday apartment.

Internet forums on the McCann case were also awash with disgusting remarks about the Leicestershire couple."

Unflaming believable!!! No comments allowed on this article, and the main one, the headline is only printing positive comments.

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 Guest 15.10.13 1:35

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!

That's a cracker.

by Guest 15.10.13 1:35

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 1:35

Shrike wrote:
tedless wrote: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.
Could this be a way of putting the pressure on JT? Putting together this explanation of CrecheMan and his child remembering the pyjamas, way carrying the child etc., could be a proverbial pisstake and way to get to her, pressure and have her crack somewhat? trying to bring positives into all of this, that's all.....

I think it could be a way of taking pressure off her..... if she's squealed, she'll be terrified because of the 'protection' the McC's have around them.... I think they could have done a deal with her.... and IIRC, both her and RO were placed away from the table when the alarm was raised because they were attending their sick child?

by Searcher 15.10.13 1:36

Exactly so, Moongoddess; this whole dreadful story needs right earthing! titter

x

by tasprin 15.10.13 1:36

Portia wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
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.]
at least they're reporting it....
Question remains: why are they certain mr McCann had absolutely nothing to do with his daughters disappearance

Which facts support this certainty: where precisely was GM at the time of the Smiths sighting; why did the McCs and their own detectives hide the evidence till caught out by SY just now, why did they never, not one single instant, show any interest/curiosity in this apparent abductor

What now, when Jane Tanner has proved a liar? Or rather, has been called a liar? How will she live on? She has a child, children perhaps; how will they live on, their mother shamed to smitereens by SY and the McCs tonight?

Not nice, all of tonights work, definitely not

Well Jane Tanner did say the man she saw must have been a bad parent because it was a cold night and the child was barefoot. Maybe that's why he waited six years before coming forward.

by susible 15.10.13 1:36

candyfloss wrote:
susible wrote:
annemab wrote:In most of the trailers I saw yesterday and today, there was a little girl dressed like Maddie in the 'last' photo (the pool one) either playing tennis or collecting tennis balls - but this was not shown on the programme? or did I blink and miss it?
No, it wasn't on the programme, also not on the programme was Kate's proclamation of "we've done nothing wrong" changed to "we have not committed a crime" probably due to the backlash of the public...Yeah you did do something wrong"

But you are right, all of these scenes were touted at the start as being part of the programme....Hmmm what's changed I wonder
Yes you are right susible, they CHANGED tonights programme from the trailer from we're not the one's who've done something wrong........

Now why would they change that Candyfloss? Admittedly my daughter had to restrain me in my seat when I heard that, How can they change a trailer for a crimewatch special in that way..thought this was pre-recorded..how many versions do they have?

Lots of questions for the BBC!

by loopzdaloop 15.10.13 1:38

Tony Bennett wrote:

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".

Ah these were the exact words, thank you for posting that link.
I believe the above is a very good disclaimer that Redwood made whilst leading the Mccann's nicely down the garden path.

by Ribisl 15.10.13 1:39

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!

by susible 15.10.13 1:39

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!

Yes, but would you want to be in Tanner's flip flops tonight?

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 1:40

tasprin wrote:
Portia wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
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.]
at least they're reporting it....
Question remains: why are they certain mr McCann had absolutely nothing to do with his daughters disappearance

Which facts support this certainty: where precisely was GM at the time of the Smiths sighting; why did the McCs and their own detectives hide the evidence till caught out by SY just now, why did they never, not one single instant, show any interest/curiosity in this apparent abductor

What now, when Jane Tanner has proved a liar? Or rather, has been called a liar? How will she live on? She has a child, children perhaps; how will they live on, their mother shamed to smitereens by SY and the McCs tonight?

Not nice, all of tonights work, definitely not
Well Jane Tanner did say the man she saw must have been a bad parent because it was a cold night and the child was barefoot. Maybe that's why he waited six years before coming forward.

I would have come forward straight away and said "at least mine was in the bloody crèche"

by Searcher 15.10.13 1:40

I have to take the Daily Mail comments as hilarious! I wonder what they are up to (have not checked the site so am taking it that the quotes are a real piece of reporting on trolls!). They are clever enough to do it like that, and also the implication is, for me, an underlying covert message to readers: "Keep analysing .." Mrs

by Onager 15.10.13 1:40

Ribisl wrote:
russiandoll wrote: ALL THE IMPORTANT STUFF WAS OMITTED. APART FROM SMITH SIGHTING.
That I believe was the whole point of the programme. They want more witnesses to come forward who might have seen ~~Gerry McCann~~ a man taking Madeleine somewhere. By saying that GM is not a suspect, they are making sure of getting unprompted voluntary disclosure.

This is how I viewed the programme... though CW is not usually on my radar.

by russiandoll 15.10.13 1:41

I suggest we forget the media and concentrate on what was said /not said on CW. What we saw / did not see.

We did not see any attempt by Redwood to demonstrate how and when there was an opportunity for an abductor to strike.

He was absolutely clear imo that the info he wants is on the man seen by the Smiths.

He wants closure, 6 years has been long enough.

He was not alongside the parents, for some reason.

He made no mention of finding Maddie and getting her home iirc.

I don't believe for a minute that a senior detective considering a missing child after 6 years thinks there is any chance that the child is alive.

He does seem determined to establish what happened to her imo.

I still maintain my opinion that if this were a cover up of some huge establishment secret there would have silence years ago.

I don't believe that every detective in this case lacks a conscience.

by plebgate 15.10.13 1:41

A bad parent because the child had nothing on its feet on a cold night.

Why not also add - taking the child from a cozy cot/bed in the night creche out into the cold night air without a coat or blanket wrapped around the child to keep it warm.

By the sound of it MW could have made a fortune if they had held good parenting classes on that holiday.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 1:41

Yes, I could never get over the cheek of Tanner saying that about bad parenting. I do get the feeling that the tapas lot feel they are above everyone else and probably above the law.

by MRNOODLES 15.10.13 1:42

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!

GM, 'You just made that up about eliminating night creche man'.

SY, 'Oh yeah, what makes you say that?'

GM, 'Cos we made him up in the first place...... oh shit!'

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 1:43

Searcher wrote:I have to take the Daily Mail comments as hilarious! I wonder what they are up to (have not checked the site so am taking it that the quotes are a real piece of reporting on trolls!). They are clever enough to do it like that, and also the implication is, for me, an underlying covert message to readers: "Keep analysing .."

and join those "internet forums"... big grin

by Cristobell 15.10.13 1:43

For anyone interested in the body language of DCI Redwood, note, he visibly flinches when the word 'charity' is used. The question was about the charity collectors in PDL prior to the arrival of the world's best parents, but I picked up that 'charity' was a sensitive word.