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

by Guest 14.10.13 23:56

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

by plebgate 14.10.13 23:56

plebgate wrote:Well she checked all the apartment before running out and leaving the twins in the room alone again and she hasn't said that she saw the abductor in the apartment.

ETA in response to Russain Doll's post about headlines in one of the papers. "Was kidnapper still in room when Kate got back?

by juliet 14.10.13 23:56

I have no faith in Redwood. He looks like a fool.
As for Kate Mccann-she is beginning to look like Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of the Yorkshire Ripper. Same bulges under the lower lip.

by Guest 14.10.13 23:56

Metropolitan Police ‏@metpoliceuk [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Madeleine [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] reconstruction is now available to view online [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by susible 14.10.13 23:56

russiandoll wrote: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.

Brilliant analysis...am with you 100%

The few things that were said by Redwood (and re-jigged by the producers the words of the McCanns) speak volumes for me...I am not disheartened yet (okay a bit annoyed at the sycophantic approach, but meh nothing new there)

Overall though..I DO believe that SY will crack this case

by Guest 14.10.13 23:57

Do I remember correctly, that the McCanns were "expected" to be live on TV tonight?
Sitting, as announced sitting side by side with Mr. Redwood?
And did they ????

NO, they didn't!
I am still fuming [and Maman too. Which is very dangerous at her age ...].

by phil_burton 14.10.13 23:57

Never posted on here before, but I've read Amaral's book, and I'm a firm believer that the McCanns were somehow involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

I've not seen tonight's Crimewatch, I dont know if I can be bothered to watch it - I'm fed up of the British media. This case has really opened my eyes to the lack of transparency in the higher echelons of power in this country (politics, media, justice etc).

I noticed several comments earlier by users saying that this whole Crimewatch thing might be a "trap" to lure the McCanns in to making their story/variances in stories look ridiculous, and thus bringing them closer to prosecution! Personally, I dont buy this for one minute.

If the Mccann's have backers powerful/rich enough to prevent the whole British media from reporting the WHOLE story, then it's not a stretch to imagine that their power/influence stretches to the BBC. (Incidently, is Crimewatch produced by the BBC? Or is it produced by an independent company (a bit like Top Gear is)).

I believe the only way to finding out what truly happens is if one of the Tapas 7 succumbs to guilt and reveals something (whether inadvertently or not)...but even then, with the way the British media have portrayed this case, I doubt the likelihood of the truth being found.

by Guest 14.10.13 23:57

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

by Searcher 14.10.13 23:58

It is possible that a general thought has been planted tonight, which a majority of people - not following the case in any depth - would miss. The general thought would be on the lines of: How extraordinary; one witness thought he saw GM carrying a child that night.

Even if dismissed as an "error", the thought is now out there. I wonder what cumulative effect it may have, and what other questions it may help to raise. nah

by stillsloppingout 15.10.13 0:00

loopzdaloop 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?

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?

Ribisl wrote: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
Yes, I can see that. I wonder where Gerry was going. Please can some-one point out where on the route that place was that Murat owned which has the freezer in it? Also, didn't the Mccann's replace another freezer in the holiday apartment? or did I dream that?
I also can't quite bring to mind what the conclusions of Pat Brown were around the beach about where Gerry may have gone?

It was Kate's suicidal ideation in her book that always struck me.

Mrs McCann has written before that she was plagued by depression and suicidal thoughts after the abduction of Madeleine.
In a book chronicling her daughter’s disappearance and the toll it took on her family, she wrote that she had an overwhelming urge to swim out to her death at sea.
She wrote: “I had an overwhelming urge to swim out across the ocean, as hard and as fast as I could; to swim and swim and swim until I was so far out and so exhausted I could just allow the water to pull me under and relieve me of this torment.
“I wasn't keeping that desire to myself, either. I was shouting it out to anyone who happened to be in the room. Both this urge and the expression of it were, I suppose, an outlet for the crucifying anguish.
"Somehow, inflicting physical pain on myself seemed to be the only possible way of escaping my internal pain,” she wrote in the book published two years ago. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
wishing to drown in the sea is very specific, which made me wonder if the body was disposed out to sea.

Doubt they would have disposed of the body in the sea , the sea gives up it's dead , wouldnt look good washing up on the beach .
unless they weighed it down , small child about 1 stone would do it . placed in say a large blue sports bag weighted down with some sand, bobs yer uncle .

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 0:01

From the Crimewatch site

The Metropolitan Police Service is offering a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz Portugal on the 3 May 2007.

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

They didn't say on the programme?

by Ollie1 15.10.13 0:01

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.

It was the McCann's who were still touting the shutter forced open scenario. SY didntshow how the abductor entered the apartment when they could of showed the abductor entering through the unlocked patio doors but didn't, IMO for a reason.

by plebgate 15.10.13 0:01

Châtelaine wrote:Do I remember correctly, that the McCanns were "expected" to be live on TV tonight?
Sitting, as announced sitting side by side with Mr. Redwood?
And did they ????

NO, they didn't!
I am still fuming [and Maman too. Which is very dangerous at her age ...].

Yes you remembered correctly. I also haven't seen any mention of a direct appeal to the abductor which I remember was reported was going to happen.

by russiandoll 15.10.13 0:01

from Mail Online :

Twitter trolls posted vile messages about the parents of Madeleine McCann yesterday in the run up to the Crimewatch appeal on their missing daughter.
Kate and Gerry McCann were subjected to appalling taunts as they prepared to go on TV to discuss the case.
One troll tweeted a mocked-up picture of the McCanns as Moors murderers Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Sick: The McCanns were the target of cruel taunts from internet trolls in the run-up to their appearance on Crimewatch

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.

More...

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

It was the mocked up picture of the McCanns as Hindley and Brady which particularly disgusted friends of the couple.
One described the image, which was retweeted by other trolls, as ‘completely beyond the pale’ and there was mounting speculation last night that it could trigger police action.
Detectives are now monitoring the Internet for vile messages about the McCanns.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Investigation: The McCanns were interviewed as part of a Crimewatch programme with fresh information on the disappearance of Madeleine

A spokesman for the McCanns said: ‘Kate and Gerry do not dignify this sort of abusive material with any comment.
‘But if necessary offensive tweets are brought to the attention of the police.’
In July this year, police arrested a 25-year-old man on suspicion of harassment after Twitter abuse was aimed at a feminist campaigner and a female MP.
Caroline Criado Perez and Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy both complained about being sent vicious tweets on the site.
Labour MP Stella Creasy was told on Twitter she would be tracked down and raped while Tory MP Claire Perry received death threats relating to her fight against pornography on the internet.
Feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez suffered similarly vile online messages - leading one alleged abuser to be arrested and bailed.
In September 2012 the country’s chief prosecutor said internet trolls who post one-off offensive messages may escape criminal charges.
Keir Starmer QC said court action would be taken only where there was a ‘sustained campaign of harassment’ or a direct threat. This, he said, was necessary, to protect free speech.
The Director of Public Prosecutions made his comments as he announced that a semi-professional footballer who posted a homophobic tweet about Olympic diver Tom Daley would not face criminal charges.
He said the comments were not so ‘grossly offensive’ that they should lead to a prosecution.

Daniel Thomas sent the message about Daley, 18, and diving partner Peter Waterfield, 31, after the pair missed out on a medal at the London Olympics.

Thomas was arrested after the tweet spread around the internet.

It falsely suggested that Daley and Waterfield were in a gay relationship and drew a link between homosexuality and HIV.
Under the 2003 Communications Act, it is an offence to send messages online that are grossly offensive.

by Cristobell 15.10.13 0:02

annemab wrote:
Cristobell wrote: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.
I didn't notice that - must watch it again! - but I did notice he was shaking his head a lot when he should have been nodding.

Do you think he is thinking of the Fund?

I have been studying micro-expressions Anne, this case introduces you to lots of new skills, and we have quite a few experts on here. The word 'charity' was mentioned and Andy flinched before he had got the gist of the question.

The Madeleine Fund is the opposite of transparent and it is well worth anyone's time to have a look at the excellent report by Enid O'Dowd (accountant) on the McCann Files. Only a miniscule amount of Fund has actually been used to search for Maddie, most has gone on defending the parents image, and curiously, the million pound fund has NO employees. Worth noting too, that some of the private investigators hired by the Fund are now in prison. Oh, and supporting the family, remains one of its objectives.

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

by Searcher 15.10.13 0:03

Phil_Burton - you may well be right. When I am hopeful, I try to see the positive - if hidden - possibilities for a right outcome. When overwhelmed by some of the other thoughts, it looks pretty hopeless. I do have a belief that the truth must come out one day. For me too it was GA's book that changed everything, and still does. Sad to say.
I'm fairly new here but nice to say welcome. welcome

by loopzdaloop 15.10.13 0:04

phil_burton wrote:Never posted on here before, but I've read Amaral's book, and I'm a firm believer that the McCanns were somehow involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

I've not seen tonight's Crimewatch, I dont know if I can be bothered to watch it - I'm fed up of the British media. This case has really opened my eyes to the lack of transparency in the higher echelons of power in this country (politics, media, justice etc).

I noticed several comments earlier by users saying that this whole Crimewatch thing might be a "trap" to lure the McCanns in to making their story/variances in stories look ridiculous, and thus bringing them closer to prosecution! Personally, I dont buy this for one minute.

If the Mccann's have backers powerful/rich enough to prevent the whole British media from reporting the WHOLE story, then it's not a stretch to imagine that their power/influence stretches to the BBC. (Incidently, is Crimewatch produced by the BBC? Or is it produced by an independent company (a bit like Top Gear is)).

I believe the only way to finding out what truly happens is if one of the Tapas 7 succumbs to guilt and reveals something (whether inadvertently or not)...but even then, with the way the British media have portrayed this case, I doubt the likelihood of the truth being found.

You need to watch this -->
Its a well used tactic. There are some good american versions of this show as well of police putting people under pressure via the medium of television to see how they bend.

by phil_burton 15.10.13 0:04

Searcher wrote:It is possible that a general thought has been planted tonight, which a majority of people - not following the case in any depth - would miss. The general thought would be on the lines of: How extraordinary; one witness thought he saw GM carrying a child that night.

Even if dismissed as an "error", the thought is now out there. I wonder what cumulative effect it may have, and what other questions it may help to raise.

From what I've seen over the past few years, the vast majority of the British public are stupid. I speak to people I know about this case and they are totally brainwashed by what the Daily Mail says.

I like the thought of planting subliminal thoughts (a la Heinz Baked Beans millisecond adverts! Incidentally, has anyone checked for this? Wink

) but this is all a charade, one which the McCanns are in on, they're not going to go anywhere near anything that might remotely imply they're involved.

by russiandoll 15.10.13 0:05

Châtelaine wrote:Do I remember correctly, that the McCanns were "expected" to be live on TV tonight?
Sitting, as announced sitting side by side with Mr. Redwood?
And did they ????

NO, they didn't!
I am still fuming [and Maman too. Which is very dangerous at her age ...].

The parents were reported to be making an appeal to the abductor tonight, that did not happen either.

by susible 15.10.13 0:05

candyfloss wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ahh..so now they are putting it back squarely at the feet of the McCanns...Kate in particular!

Remember that time the Mc's tried to do that to Oldfield, inasmuch that if he had checked properly the alarm could have been raised earlier...only the independent witnesses claimed they hear a commotion at approx 9.30pm..Oh dear..

by loopzdaloop 15.10.13 0:07

Cristobell wrote:
annemab wrote:
Cristobell wrote: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.
I didn't notice that - must watch it again! - but I did notice he was shaking his head a lot when he should have been nodding.

Do you think he is thinking of the Fund?
I have been studying micro-expressions Anne, this case introduces you to lots of new skills, and we have quite a few experts on here. The word 'charity' was mentioned and Andy flinched before he had got the gist of the question.

The Madeleine Fund is the opposite of transparent and it is well worth anyone's time to have a look at the excellent report by Enid O'Dowd (accountant) on the McCann Files. Only a miniscule amount of Fund has actually been used to search for Maddie, most has gone on defending the parents image, and curiously, the million pound fund has NO employees. Worth noting too, that some of the private investigators hired by the Fund are now in prison. Oh, and supporting the family, remains one of its objectives.

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

The way to do the comparison is to look at how the Mccann's expressions and mannerisms when they were discussing true events from memory, the way they were looking, moving, smiling etc etc. I believe we saw some real emotion initially.
Then when it got further into the interview with Kirsty, everything about the way they were recalling things had changed.
Even my o/h felt that they were acting shifty... and she thinks i'm daft RE: all of this.

by juliet 15.10.13 0:07

russiandoll -redwood is a man who shamelessly fitted up Barry George over the Jill Dando murder. He disregarded the true facts then to suit a story. He is doing the same before he sinks into well paid obscurity. He has no integrity..that is known. He is not even hinting that the mccanns are lying swine. Just seeing that they get away with idiots like kirstie young drooling over them.

by russiandoll 15.10.13 0:07

quote phil burton " If the Mccann's have backers powerful/rich enough to prevent the whole British media from reporting the WHOLE story, then it's not a stretch to imagine that their power/influence stretches to the BBC. (Incidently, is Crimewatch produced by the BBC? Or is it produced by an independent company (a bit like Top Gear is)). "

I take your point , but do you believe this stretches to the police and what would be the motive for such a huge and extensive cover up in your view?

by Ollie1 15.10.13 0:08

russiandoll wrote: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.

I agree with you russiandoll. Redwood mentioned bringing closure but didn't say closure for Madeleine's
parents. He also said something along the lines that this was for Madeleine, which (I may be wrong here) reminded me of Goncalo Amaral.

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.