CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***Part 1 DISCUSSION****

tiredofthebs wrote: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.

Fear will play its part as well

juliet wrote: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.

Allegedly he was in a royal's inner circle allright !!   

tiredofthebs wrote: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.

John Stalker, an ex Deputy Chief Constable, did.

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

TellTheTruth wrote: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

Excellent post TellTheTruth, I think that is a very good analysis

susible wrote:

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.

But he was locked away for shooting Jill Dando - not sexually assaulting her. If he was an abuser surely he would have sexually assaulted her first - not just shot her. Did he have a history of murder?...

Woofer wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote: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.

John Stalker, an ex Deputy Chief Constable, did.

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

I stand corrected. Good to see too. Was he the only one?

I remember seeing that vile self-publicist Mark Williams-Thomas appearing everywhere to say how totally innocent the McCanns were. As did that Elm Guest House attendee Ray Wyre.

I lost count of the number of times Kate looked up and to the left when answering KY's questions. Can demonstrate her constructing a visual image rather than recalling an actual image. She also referred to Madeleine as "a little girl" on a number of occasions. Yes she was and still would be, but it's a rather impersonal way for a mother to refer to her daughter / Madeleine.

With regards to the stranger abduction theory, I don't know how SY could seriously buy that. 

Redwood mentioned that the abductors were organised. Well, to pull off such an abduction without leaving one shred of material evidence and no corroborative or even vaguely accurate sightings would have required a high level of sophistication. 

So did this team evolve from four bungled break-ins during the preceding week, to a precisely-timed extraction of a child who just happened to be left alone with two infant siblings? 

Also, choosing Madeleine over two easier targets would suggest that the team were preferential. Would such a team hang around a busy holiday resort in the hope that they happen across negligent parents who had abandoned the type of child they were looking for? That doesn't smack or either the organisation or sophistication required to prosecute such an abduction. Additionally, the movement of holiday-makers is more difficult to predict given the susceptibility to caprices when away from the routine of home life. How many times have we been on holiday and gone on trips or remained out later than usual on a whim?  Again, a team hanging around in the hope of a perfect storm does not make sense. 

I really hope SY are keeping their hand close to their chest. Maybe by pursuing the stranger abduction theory to its very limit it can be finally ruled out. And that doesn't leave many other options for them to consider.

I also wonder of KY was culpable of a Freudian slip when she asked the McCanns about the "Madeleine-shaped hole".

just seen on Twitter that 'Smith sighting' getting 100 hits a minute on McCann files....

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.

Maybe (just a thought)  Redwood didn't mention it, to see if the McCs would?  And as they didn't, it obviously didn't happen.

What does that really mean?  It means, If I thought my kidnapped daughter was still alive. I'd put an appeal above everything else on the programme.

Just my opinion.

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.

They did show the shutters up on the CW 'reconstruction'.

tiredofthebs wrote:

Woofer wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote: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.

John Stalker, an ex Deputy Chief Constable, did.

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

I stand corrected. Good to see too. Was he the only one?

I remember seeing that vile self-publicist Mark Williams-Thomas appearing everywhere to say how totally innocent the McCanns were. As did that Elm Guest House attendee Ray Wyre.

Ray Wyre....Shivers. I never could watch him when he was on tv, everything he said belied what you really thought about him. And then when he teamed up with the Mccanns, you realised your gut reaction was oh so right. I didn't know that he was an Elm Guest House attendee though. I haven't really followed this that well, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
TELEGRAPH
 
Blogs Home » News » Society » Dan Hodges
 
 Dan Hodges
 
Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation. He is on Twitter at @dpjhodges.
   
Madeleine McCann: the police are hunting for a needle in a haystack. Should we really be drawn into this circus?  
 By Dan Hodges Society Last updated: October 14th, 2013
 
 
Images of the "man" police want to question (Photo: PA)
 
The circus continues. This morning the police have issued a new e-fit of a man they say they want to interview in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It is on the front of every newspaper, website and television bulletin in the country.
 
We are being asked to examine it. To rack our brains and scour our memories. Is there anything about this man we find familiar? Is there anything we can do to help the investigation?
 
Our natural instincts kick in. We stare at it. Then we stare deep into ourselves. What if it was our own child, we say. So we stare once more. At the lifeless, digitally produced eyes of the monster. The man who may have snatched that little girl.
 
And at that point we are no longer observers of the circus, but part of it. And because we have become part of it, the harder we stare, the less we see.
 
Two e-fits have been produced this morning. According to police they are of the same man. But in fact, they are of two men. Their hair is different. Their eyebrows are different. Their noses are different. Their ears are different. Their lips are different. Their cheekbones are different.
 
But we’re all part of the circus now. So we say nothing. 
 
The images of the “man” are being broadcast because, according to police, he represents a crucial lead. But if you listen harder you realise that’s not what the police are saying at all. Yes, a spokesman claimed, it was of “vital importance” the man in the images is identified and interviewed. But he then conceded that he “may or may not be key”. According to Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood “Whilst this man may or may not be the key to unlocking this investigation, tracing and speaking to him is of vital importance to us.”
 
He may be the key. He may not be the key. In the same way you or I may be the key, or may not be the key. But we are definitely part of the circus. So we say nothing. 
 
And why is it “vital” this man be traced? Because he was seen with a child. Has anyone said it was Madeleine? No. Was he seen hanging around other children? Has he any record of child abduction, or demonstrating any inappropriate interest in children?
 
Apparently not. According to the police they need to interview him because “We have witnesses placing him in the resort area around the time of Madeleine's disappearance”. Praia da Luz has a resident population of over 3,000 people. That excludes the additional thousands who visit on holiday. And yet being “in the resort area” is now enough to warrant police investigation. But we are part of the circus. And fortunately, we weren’t in the area at the time. So we say nothing. 
 
Is there anything else that makes this particular individual so important to the investigation? Apparently not. Here’s Det Ch Insp Redwood again: "This is far from our only line of inquiry and there will be e-fits released of other sightings as well, who we are equally keen to trace. These people were seen on the day of Madeleine's disappearance and the days leading up to it."
 
So it seems there is nothing special about this “suspect”. There will be other e-fits. Other appeals. Other questions asked about people who “were in the area”. But we are part of the circus now. So we wait for them. And say nothing. 
 
We certainly don’t question whether the police investigation is indeed making any headway. And why should we? The police spokesman assures us they are making “massive steps forward". Though they have also sought to “try and draw everything back to zero… take everything back to the beginning and then reanalyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing”. The police are moving forward, but they are also heading back to zero.
 
The investigating team also appear to be spreading their net wide. “Our requests for help need to be repeated in many different countries,” says Redwood. You may not have been in Praia da Luz. You may never have been to Portugal. You may not live in the UK. You may, in fact, live anywhere on the planet. But the police need your help. Even though they are making great progress. "We still have a lot of material to investigate and much work to do," Redwood admits.
 
And so before our very eyes we see the police engaged in this game of hunting a needle in the haystack. And yet we say nothing. We have our ringside seats to the circus. And we will not be vacating them.
 
But there are some who don’t have seats to the show. They are the faces that stare out from the website Missing Kids. It currently features 123 children who are currently missing from home. The youngest is three years old. The most recent date of disappearance was Michelle Brewer, reported missing six days ago. The oldest, Mary Flanagan, reported missing on December 31st, 1959.
 
They will have no television appeals. No e-fits. No special police units established after direct intervention from the Prime Minister.
 
Madeleine McCann is gone. But the circus rolls on.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Very insightful Bobby Peru - I am thinking along the same lines as you.

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Just reviewed Crimewatch on uTube. Lies. Distortion, Revisionist history. Ridiculous "reconstruction." Conveniently missing details. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

            

But most people still think the mccanns left their kids in a hotel room and dined in the hotel garden ! The bed in the so called reconstruction was very rumpled. Paynes visit whether for three minutes or thirtywasn't even mentioned. Yet he blamed on about angels in white peaceful and calm. If Redwood - who WAS the man who fitted up Barry George - was trying to "hint" about the buddy mccanns he didn't make much effort.

Thank you Susible. .I'm not a great poster.

Just trying to look on the positive side. It's been so many years of dashed hopes and I really hope the McCanns are sweating a bit tonight.

It's way past my bedtime.

I think I'll sleep better than they will tonight!

Sorry if you have already discussed this, or this has already been pointed out, but I don't have the time to look at every post.


On the BBC website that carries the reconstruction, look at kate speaking, starting at around 06.20, where kate is reading stories to the kid's . Around 06.36 kate say's something like:
“it was just a nice...err... moment......, really,.... ( big gulp of air, almost crying at this point, as she recalls what may have happened)...”and then gerry got back.......”


Oh dear.

TellTheTruth wrote: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

Great post TTT 

Door hanging on WRONG side of frame.

Gerry has said 'abductor' could have been behind door in childrens room.
Crimewatch has door on LEFT hand side opening to hit maddies bed!
So if 'abductor' was BEHIND there he'd have been on Maddies bed!
And when Gerry went INTO room to see Maddy and think how lucky he was then he would have seen 'abductor' ON her bed!

Also the now non 'abductor' carrying his child was wearing the EXACT same pyjamas as Madeleine because JT described them in GREAT detail, which is WHY she assumed it was Maddy even though Gerry had hadn't told her what pyjamas Maddy had on,

But the non 'abductor' childs pyjamas were IDENTICAL to Madeleines, cos GM has TOLD us that.

Also if the non 'abductor' was not the 'abductor' then McCanns CLAIM that 'she was abducted' goes out of the window.

WHICH MEANS THERE IS STILL NO 'EVIDENCE' THAT MADELEINE was 'ABDUCTED' NO MATTER WHAT THE MCCANNS 'SAY'!

Also i have been informed that the 'tennis' pic BLURB as the last photo was CHANGED before broadcast because 'people' had been reading THIS forum and realised it couldn't be possible.

So a big up to all you posters!

KM BODY LANGUAGE.

Deadwood NEVER said ONCE in the CW programme the 'A' words!

'disappearance, vanished' but NOT 'abducted/abduction'

Did i see Kate's left 'shoulder lift' a few times in 'live' interview?

"And then you will see the body language (leakage), which is called a one-sided shoulder shrug, which is a squelched shoulder shrug, that says that I have absolutely no confidence in what I just said and I was lying".

I'm sure i did see that.

YEP, KM FOUR left shoulder 'lifts' followed by big gulp during and after her first 'answer'!

HUGE, HUGE left shoulder lift, by KM, looks 'involuntary' to me, near end of 'interview'

That will do for me!

Who?What?Where? wrote:Sorry if you have already discussed this, or this has already been pointed out, but I don't have the time to look at every post.


On the BBC website that carries the reconstruction, look at kate speaking, starting at around 06.20, where kate is reading stories to the kid's . Around 06.36 kate say's something like:
“it was just a nice...err... moment......, really,.... ( big gulp of air, almost crying at this point, as she recalls what may have happened)...”and then gerry got back.......”


Oh dear.

so they have basically promoted the idea that nobody [apart from K&G] saw Madeleine alive after 5.30

jeanmonroe wrote:Door hanging on WRONG side of frame.

Gerry has said 'abductor' could have been behind door in childrens room.
Crimewatch has door on LEFT hand side opening to hit maddies bed!
So if 'abductor' was BEHIND there he'd have been on Maddies bed!
And when Gerry went INTO room to see Maddy and think how lucky he was then he would have seen 'abductor' ON her bed!

Also the now non 'abductor' carrying his child was wearing the EXACT same pyjamas as Madeleine because JT described them in GREAT detail, which is WHY she assumed it was Maddy even though Gerry had hadn't told her what pyjamas Maddy had on,

But the non 'abductor' childs pyjamas were IDENTICAL to Madeleines, cos GM has TOLD us that.

Also if the non 'abductor' was not the 'abductor' then McCanns CLAIM that 'she was abducted' goes out of the window.

WHICH MEANS THERE IS STILL NO 'EVIDENCE' THAT MADELEINE was 'ABDUCTED' NO MATTER WHAT THE MCCANNS 'SAY'!

Also i have been informed that the 'tennis' pic BLURB as the last photo was CHANGED before broadcast because 'people' had been reading THIS forum and realised it couldn't be possible.

So a big up to all you posters!

So that was another load of license fee payers money wasted again, filming a scene that was never shown in the arena it should have been, or it was proposed to have been. Look's like its all falling apart, but never mind its just license fee payers/tax payers money that is paying for this sham when evidence is pointing so far the other way.

Cristobell wrote:

TellTheTruth wrote: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

Great post TTT 

Thank you Cristobell. Just trying to get the hang of this forum. Looking forward to developments over the next few days

I am sick of looking at how Kate mccann maybe has funny body language or how Redwood isn't wrapped round her kissing her so therefore is about to arrest her. As I see it they are all laughing at how easily the dopey British public will swallow lies and insults to intelligence.