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

by MoonGoddess Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:01 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:01 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:01 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:01 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:02 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:03 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:04 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:04 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:05 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:05 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:07 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:07 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:07 am

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 Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:08 am

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.

by Lance De Boils Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:09 am

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

So when she searched the apartment, not only could Kate not find Madeleine, but didn't find an abductor either?
Should've gone to Specsavers.

by mouse Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:10 am

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.

Welcome - from one newbie to another

I'm with you on this. I actually, and sadly, cannot see this case being solved any day soon. Unless of course someone is very brave, or is on their deathbed, and even then....

I think it will eventually come out one day, but how long did it take for the Jimmy Saville revelations to come to the fore - nobody apparently knew. Well I heard stories when he came to our town, nothing that I could say I witnessed but all I can say is that everybody that I knew didn't like him. Anyway, it took years, and people around him at the BBC apparently didn't know, people in the NHS also? Some on here say the Mccanns can't be protected - but all those who worked, made their money from Jimmy Saville protected him, they must have known something, but nobody has been prosecuted, and some still defend him to this day....

by plebgate Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:10 am

I wonder what Murat thought of it all.

BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL was his thinking this summer, is it still the same?

by russiandoll Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:10 am

and if he was, where had he hidden the child? This is getting ridiculous.

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:11 am

MoonGoddess wrote: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?

I wonder if the McCanns will dip into their fund to offer a reward ?

by tiredofthebs Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:11 am

juliet wrote: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.

Tangled web, isn't it?

There are some who think that Dando was onto the BBC paedo ring and that is why she was shot. This Redwood guy then fits up Barry George, then appears on the very programme that Dando was on to whitewash the McCanns. The very same McCanns who were reported for paedo suspicions by the gaspars.

This is all about covering up a VIP paedo ring. I am certain of it.

by Woofer Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:12 am

russiandoll wrote: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?

They said at 9.20 everyone ws back at the table.
At 9.30 Kate was going to do a check but MO said he was going to check his kids and would check theirs as well, but nothing was mentioned about him going into the apartment and seeing the twins but not Maddie.
They said Russell went to do a check as well and stayed in his apartment because his daughter was ill.

by mouse Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:12 am

tiredofthebs wrote:
juliet wrote: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.
Tangled web, isn't it?

There are some who think that Dando was onto the BBC paedo ring and that is why she was shot. This Redwood guy then fits up Barry George, then appears on the very programme that Dando was on to whitewash the McCanns. The very same McCanns who were reported for paedo suspicions by the gaspars.

This is all about covering up a VIP paedo ring. I am certain of it.

Bumpt

by MoonGoddess Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:13 am

juliet wrote: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.

Well that tells me all I need to know now..... no wonder BG isn't getting anywhere with his claim for compensation.....

I utterly despair at times, I really do.

by susible Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:13 am

loopzdaloop wrote:
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.

Notably, Kate started off her memories of 3rd May with an almost verbatim of her statement..she deviated a bit later on, but it was almost like she had practised it..I also noted that apart from the odd whoosh, they kept their hands away from their faces and away from each other!

by plebgate Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:13 am

russiandoll wrote:and if he was, where had he hidden the child? This is getting ridiculous.

IIRC Mr. thought that the abductor might have been in the apartment whilst he was doing his 9.05 check.

Why would the abductor still be there at 10.00pm?

by Chimaera Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:14 am

Okay, so the big BBC thing on MBM has been aired. Remarkable not for what it said but for what it didn’t say: A programme aimed squarely at the casual observer, the dilettante rather than the seasoned pro. This was an insouciant tip of the cap at anyone raising even a mildly sceptical eyebrow borne of knowledge of the case. Yes the buzz words were all here for the masses to mentally digest. Once again the McCanns have nothing to do with their daughters disappearance because they were taken from her; she was ABDUCTED and they are INNOCENT. After all who could not be convinced of such after Kirsty Young’s simpering in depth interviews?

The new timeline? Well a patsy has been found wandering about with a kid late homeward bound from a nursery to get the Tanner sighting dismissed while absolving the woman of the lies she told imo: The implication being she was right in her sighting after all, merely mistaken about who it was. The Irish sighting now takes centre stage without even a whisper about the probability in the witness’s mind that it was Gerry McCann. Instead we have some vague E-Fits of Joe Public based on the general look and demeanour of the child carrying individual. God knows where the Met will turn if some innocent comes forward with an explanation for that one.

What we now know is that Andy Redwood’s team are selling a myth and the BBC is his mouthpiece. Burglary’s up 40%, charity door knockers, mysterious loiterers, well oiled roller shutters sliding smoothly open; the whole bag of dirty washing has been tipped onto the floor for all to see. All the more remarkable is the cost of the operation dismissed by a wave of the BBC hand as a remedy open to one and all with a missing child. Just write to Cameron and he’ll get the Met on to it right away don’t you know.

Allied to the press take on this mystery we now have the whole body of law makers and opinion formers singing the McCann’s tune and it is about as convincing as an X factor passport into the next round for anyone with even the slightest interest in the case. You may not be able to fool everyone all the time, as the saying goes, but I think we are standing exposed in the teeth of a hurricane of an attempt to prove the old adage wrong.

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:14 am

Wasn't it Hamish Campbell who was in charge of the Jill Dando case?

by russiandoll Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:15 am

even if the abductor had entered just before Kates check.... M was not in bed or anywhere she looked . So where could she have been?

Bloody bonkers.

by Guest Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:16 am

plebgate wrote:
russiandoll wrote:and if he was, where had he hidden the child? This is getting ridiculous.
IIRC Mr. thought that the abductor might have been in the apartment whilst he was doing his 9.05 check.

Why would the abductor still be there at 10.00pm?

I had forgotten that plebgate, well remembered.

by loopzdaloop Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:16 am

juliet wrote: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.

This is the umpteenth insulting paragraph that you have written about Redwood in so many posts.
From what we have seen him say, he has been careful with what he has done so. There has also been no leaks from Scotland Yard. Everything has been controlled and measured. To wheel out this Barry George debacle to put at his door is shameful on your part as I have yet to see anything that places what happened at Redwood's door. Lets also not forget that Barry was not an 'innocent'. Barry was a danger to the public and had indecently assaulted a number of women before he started playing around with ropes, guns and balaclavas. Irrespective of any mental conditions he may have had he was a danger and being locked up contributed to a safer community.

I think you are a troll.