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

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.

by stillsloppingout 15.10.13 0:42

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.

They could not have done it convincingly . they probably tried but after the 100th take . they said fuc@ it .

When i say they could not have done it . there lying is easy it is telling mistruths , but saying in front of a camera , a message for your Daughter when you IMO know her fate . would have been beyond any human .

It will have not gone unnoticed though .

by juliet 15.10.13 0:44

I don't agree. The powers that be must have had a good idea what he was doing with young girls on his walks and road shows and Tv stuff. Even years ago in my bit of England there were rumours too that he was a necrophiliac among other things. So top men at the BBC must have known his nasty habits.And top NHS staff must have known he should not be given free rein in Broadmoor, numerous hospitals or various mortuaries. As for the Royal family - they took him into their inner circle.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 0:44

Ollie1 wrote: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.

I sincerely hope you are right.

What jurisdiction does Redmond have anyway? If he arrested the McCanns and charged them, couldn't the PJ ask for them to be extradited and tried in Portugal?

by susible 15.10.13 0:45

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.

Err What? Yes, he had assaulted a number of women, he was a danger to the public...so what he should just be allowed to wander around?

My understanding is that his conviction was unsafe, not that he was innocent of the crime, a technicality if you like and we all know how many guilty people are freed on technicalities, so don't be so quick to judge on this particular case.

by TellTheTruth 15.10.13 0:45

Why the Crimewatch programme now? Bearing in mind Redwood said they still have a lot of work to do. Could it be that the work that they have done so far has given them reason to believe that the McCanns and friends know much more about that night than they are telling and it might well be a different story than they have been telling so far? Bearing in mind too that they cannot possibly believe that they are looking for a live child and therefore no DESPERATE rush to find her and return her to her "loving" family. They could just plod along going through the evidence untill they were SURE they could arrest someone or two..or more.

The police and the McCanns certainly weren't cozying up on the same sofa, Police one side of the studio, McCanns the other.

Could it be that they wanted to push them back into the open, bring out the Smith sighting, and watch them all closely?

I have no idea how the police work but when you're dealing with the McCanns surely you have to play a few tricks, seems only fair thumbsup