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

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 0:16

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.

sorry to veer OT but personally I think that was a Serbian hit

by phil_burton 15.10.13 0:17

mouse wrote:
phil_burton wrote:...
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....

Yes, exactly. Just look at the Saville saga. Hundreds of people knew what he was really like and still the truth didnt come out. Why was he protected? Was it because he had fraternized with the royal family? Who knows, but it just goes to show that there are powers at work in this country above the media. The media are not free, they are told what to report.

I do have doubts about my theory on the McCanns, because at the end of the day, if they got rid of the body, they aint half done a good job of hiding the body, especially under the glare of the media. But they're still shifty. I mean Gerry McCann, he looks like a proper nasty bit of work, just something about his demeanor.

by juliet 15.10.13 0:17

russiandoll
It is certain that Savile was protected by police, hospital chiefs, BBC executives, charity leaders, care home managers and members of the royal family. There is something about this terrible case that makes me think they are protected beyond all reasonable and good conscience.

by susible 15.10.13 0:19

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.

I very much doubt it, particularly in the current environment...we only have to look at Savile for that, and the current (quite rightly) witchhunt for anyone who has behaved inappropriately with a minor, and also we do have to remember that the McCanns are nobody's..no one is going to protect them

by Searcher 15.10.13 0:20

Yes again, Phil Burton, you may well be right. The one element that suggests you are is that it has reached this point and still we have tonight 'a version' of events on CW.

As one person, a journalist, is alleged to have said way back in 2007/08: "If you knew what I know you would not be surprised." He/she could not say more than that, and it may not have been true, but it felt mighty. splat

by Guest 15.10.13 0:21

Chimaera wrote: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.

Have merged your thread here as we do not want the same discussion in different places.

by Cristobell 15.10.13 0:21

Lance De Boils wrote:
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.

LOL, needed that, thanks! :)

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 0:22

loopzdaloop 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.
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.

Perhaps the NHS should have 'sectioned' him then instead of the Police fitting him up for a crime he didn't committ

by juliet 15.10.13 0:23

philburton ....I think we have the same dark thoughts about this case.
For me, Redwood is the latest McCann paid apologist. As low as Mitchell and Edgar and more stupid than Halligen who took their money and laughed in their faces.

by stillsloppingout 15.10.13 0:24

phil_burton wrote:
mouse wrote:
phil_burton wrote:...
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....
Yes, exactly. Just look at the Saville saga. Hundreds of people knew what he was really like and still the truth didnt come out. Why was he protected? Was it because he had fraternized with the royal family? Who knows, but it just goes to show that there are powers at work in this country above the media. The media are not free, they are told what to report.

I do have doubts about my theory on the McCanns, because at the end of the day, if they got rid of the body, they aint half done a good job of hiding the body, especially under the glare of the media. But they're still shifty. I mean Gerry McCann, he looks like a proper nasty bit of work, just something about his demeanor.

Just to correct the last post . there was no glare of the media initially , only when they were being questioned .

I know snappers who were over there for months , they got there shot in the morning, then went back to there hotel . they were NEVER followed , Or papped , there are 400mm Shots but they are by accredited photographers from fixed points sticking on a zoom to get an extra shot .
point is they had plenty of time and opportunity to dispose of a child ,without any problem it was NOT a media frenzy .

by phil_burton 15.10.13 0:25

russiandoll wrote: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?

I think the Police will do anything for a quiet life. Or maybe they have no solid BRITISH evidence to use against the McCanns and therefore cant say or do anything to accuse them without risking litigation...and we all know that the Mccanns have Carter Ruck behind them.

I dont know the answer to your question - there is so much evidence against the McCanns that it seems to be an open and shut case, but there's "something" standing in the way of anything happening. Nothing in this country is said publicly to imply the McCanns were involved (surprising considering how unscrupulous the British media are! (phone hacking, turning up to politicians relatives' funerals for a good photo op etc)).

I think the most likely outcome is that one day the McCanns money will run out, and thus the support they receive from lawyers, PR specialists, and then finally, the facade might crack

by susible 15.10.13 0:26

[quote] 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.[quote]

Thank goodness someone has said it..Kudos Loopz..I know that everyone against the SY investigation leaps on the Barry George thing, but the bottom line was that it was ultimately found that his conviction was inherently unsafe, he, like the McCanns was never declared entirely innocent and he was a danger to women roses

by loopzdaloop 15.10.13 0:27

MoonGoddess wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote: Irrespective of any mental conditions he may have had he was a danger and being locked up contributed to a safer community.
.
Perhaps the NHS should have 'sectioned' him then instead of the Police fitting him up for a crime he didn't committ

I agree. I was surprised he went to prison to be honest and wasn't diverted. It was because he was one of a large number of people with borderline learning disabilities that get into trouble with the law and end up in worse trouble than they should actually be in if they had received appropriate community supports. .

by russiandoll 15.10.13 0:27

well if it is a cover up involving police and it involves a young child it is beyond evil.

by plebgate 15.10.13 0:28

I still would have liked to have heard there had been a heartfelt message to Maddie and a plea to the abductor to return Maddie safely to her family.

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 0:31

loopzdaloop wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote: Irrespective of any mental conditions he may have had he was a danger and being locked up contributed to a safer community.
.
Perhaps the NHS should have 'sectioned' him then instead of the Police fitting him up for a crime he didn't committ
I agree. I was surprised he went to prison to be honest and wasn't diverted. It was because he was one of a large number of people with borderline learning disabilities that get into trouble with the law and end up in worse trouble than they should actually be in if they had received appropriate community supports. .

I knew he had 'issues', I didn't know what they were..... that's another disgrace in this country.... the lack of help for people with mental health needs!

by Guest 15.10.13 0:31

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

by loopzdaloop 15.10.13 0:31

Can I just ask... Because David Payne was conspicuous by his absence, does this mean that a super injunction on his part and the whole Gaspar and Yvonne Martin statements is a definite? The injunction must be pretty wide considering that he was not even mentioned in the reconstruction, almost airbrushed out of history. Is there anyway we can find out? Unless he is now supergrass and being left out of it on purpose?

by susible 15.10.13 0:32

juliet wrote:russiandoll
It is certain that Savile was protected by police, hospital chiefs, BBC executives, charity leaders, care home managers and members of the royal family. There is something about this terrible case that makes me think they are protected beyond all reasonable and good conscience.

It wasn't protection in the true sense though, much of it was ignorance, or fear of speaking out to those ignorant of his deeds...Once the floodgates opened though it was a different story

by phil_burton 15.10.13 0:32

plebgate wrote:I still would have liked to have heard there had been a heartfelt message to Maddie and a plea to the abductor to return Maddie safely to her family.

Your nom de plume has just reminded me of why the Police in this country are not to be trusted.

The whole plebgate affair was a Police fabrication...and why did they fabricate it?

by susible 15.10.13 0:34

loopzdaloop wrote:Can I just ask... Because David Payne was conspicuous by his absence, does this mean that a super injunction on his part and the whole Gaspar and Yvonne Martin statements is a definite? The injunction must be pretty wide considering that he was not even mentioned in the reconstruction, almost airbrushed out of history. Is there anyway we can find out? Unless he is now supergrass and being left out of it on purpose?

It's all still in the files though..and is it not also in Kate's book?

by Ribisl 15.10.13 0:34

loopzdaloop 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.
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.

DCI Andy Redwood was not on the Dando case. DCS Hamish Campbell who has recently left Operation Grange was in charge.

by phil_burton 15.10.13 0:34

loopzdaloop wrote:Can I just ask... Because David Payne was conspicuous by his absence, does this mean that a super injunction on his part and the whole Gaspar and Yvonne Martin statements is a definite? The injunction must be pretty wide considering that he was not even mentioned in the reconstruction, almost airbrushed out of history. Is there anyway we can find out? Unless he is now supergrass and being left out of it on purpose?

Well one thing is for sure, super injuctions do stretch that far. An injunction prevents a person or incident being mentioned in a certain context, a super injuction goes one step further and prevents the admittance that an issue even exists.

by Guest 15.10.13 0:35

Thanks for confirming that for me, Ribisl.

by susible 15.10.13 0:36

phil_burton wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:Can I just ask... Because David Payne was conspicuous by his absence, does this mean that a super injunction on his part and the whole Gaspar and Yvonne Martin statements is a definite? The injunction must be pretty wide considering that he was not even mentioned in the reconstruction, almost airbrushed out of history. Is there anyway we can find out? Unless he is now supergrass and being left out of it on purpose?
Well one thing is for sure, super injuctions do stretch that far. An injunction prevents a person or incident being mentioned in a certain context, a super injuction goes one step further and prevents the admittance that an issue even exists.

Well it can't be a super injunction then because David Payne's name is easily available in reference to the McCann case

by stillsloppingout 15.10.13 0:37

phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote: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?
I think the Police will do anything for a quiet life. Or maybe they have no solid BRITISH evidence to use against the McCanns and therefore cant say or do anything to accuse them without risking litigation...and we all know that the Mccanns have Carter Ruck behind them.

I dont know the answer to your question - there is so much evidence against the McCanns that it seems to be an open and shut case, but there's "something" standing in the way of anything happening. Nothing in this country is said publicly to imply the McCanns were involved (surprising considering how unscrupulous the British media are! (phone hacking, turning up to politicians relatives' funerals for a good photo op etc)).

I think the most likely outcome is that one day the McCanns money will run out, and thus the support they receive from lawyers, PR specialists, and then finally, the facade might crack

Trouble is without a body they are stuffed . Portugal were near but not quite .
and they have a powerful machine in place .

I was chatting to a journo again tonight, and made my position clear , they said if you were a journo and revealed any secret info re the McCann's and put your name to it ," they " there team would spring to life , do background checks on you , see if you had any convictions , owed money , ring ex wives, girlfriends of yours etc , this would all be published alongside your revelation , if all clear , dismiss you as a fool , or just totally discredit you . so unless you have absolute physical evidence and you don't mind having your life exposed you have no chance .

Btw anything sent annon would be shelved or ignored .

by mouse 15.10.13 0:38

Quote below by Loopdelooza(apology is spelling wrong)

"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".

Hang on a minute- so you think, going by the above, that it was okay to lock this man away because he was just a danger to the public. So it was okay for him to go down for a crime he did not commit, while the real culprit went free? I t certainly wouldn't want you on a jury. Because how can you possibly say that? Barry George was not your average guy in the street, he had a mental disability, I've known many people with mental disabilities and statements like this are very worrying. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. Also, if you look back on the case he didn't assault a number of women, one woman complained about him, I think she found him odd hanging around, but a lot of people are odd but it doesn't mean that they are a danger, usually they are more a danger to themselves. Plus I don't know of any incidents of when he was actually charged with assault, surely he would have been - had he actually assaulted somebody. And as for the gun thing - well that has always been questionable, didn't someone take a gun into prison when they visited him, that the bag was unsealed with the gun they found...
Perhaps Tony Bennett could throw more light on the above, but I know its going off topic.

Anyway, I don't want another Barry George being fitted up for the abduction of Madeleine Mccan - but then maybe some would say - well, he was a danger to the public anyway....But who would we be letting off the hook this time?

by Searcher 15.10.13 0:39

Going back a few days, we saw here a draft of a major letter (a detailed, brilliant paper really) which I believe was intended for the CrimeWatch team, including named members of production and Kirsty Young. I believe PeterMac was sending this [I think that is correct but apologies if not, as I do not want to bring in someone's name without being sure, but I think that is right].

Nothing in that letter, if indeed it was sent, was mentioned tonight. Do we have any feedback as to whether any reply was received? Probably not but thought it worth asking. It was a brilliant letter, so well written, factual and fair. clapping

by Ollie1 15.10.13 0:41

I think people should stop insulting Redmond, that is not what this forum is for. IMO what he didn't say and what wasn't shown in the 'reconstruction' is what is important. The reconstruction omitted things like how the 'abductor' entered the apartment for a good reason. KM repeated finding the shutters up and the window open but this wasn't shown, there will be a reason. I think Redmond is following in the PJ's footsteps, he's just not shouting it from the rooftops.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 0:42

What has always troubled me the most about this case is this:

Any experienced policeman with half a brain should spot immediately that the McCanns are somehow involved. But in the last 6 years, not a single UK policeman, in any capacity or context, has ever even hinted that they thought they were involved. Even the retired coppers beng interviewed on shows have always exonerated the McCanns. Wasn't Gerry even given an award at a police dinner? Didn't Leicester police even fail to hand over the gaspars statements for 7 months?

The above can mean only one thing. They have all agreed to protect the McCanns. And that to me suggests Masonic involvement, amongst other things.