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

by juliet 15.10.13 1:26

jeanmonroe, not a dig as your posts are always very insightful. Just sick of the thought of mccann woman and how she shrugs, gurns, sneers at all who question he.

by Bobby Peru 15.10.13 1:28

It could be worth noting that the McCanns have some very influential political supporters. Scotland Yard is, historically, a highly politicised organisation. High-powered police careers can be made or broken in a high-profile case. Does anyone think that SY would publicly point the finger at the McCanns unless they could make a case that withstood legal test beyond any reasonable doubt?

I also noted with interest that CW (inaccurately) commented that the PJ had cleared the McCanns. They didn't state SY had.

by Who?What?Where? 15.10.13 1:29

MoonGoddess wrote:
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

I don't know about that.

Is the fact that Madeleine put on kate's engagement ring relevant? Why was it mentioned in the reconstruction? Was this the engagement ring that gerry bought for her? I don't understand.

by MRNOODLES 15.10.13 1:29

juliet wrote:jeanmonroe, not a dig as your posts are always very insightful. Just sick of the thought of mccann woman and how she shrugs, gurns, sneers at all who question he.

Her sound effects annoy me. I've never heard a pair of curtains make such a noise titter

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 1:31

MRNOODLES wrote:
juliet wrote:jeanmonroe, not a dig as your posts are always very insightful. Just sick of the thought of mccann woman and how she shrugs, gurns, sneers at all who question he.
Her sound effects annoy me. I've never heard a pair of curtains make such a noise

Don't you remember the Panorama programme a few years ago when she said that Madeleine was "whoosh-clunked"?

by TellTheTruth 15.10.13 1:34

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
Scotland Yard has turned the inquiry on its head. Establishing that the Jane Tanner sighting was a "red herring" has opened up possibilities that were all but ruled out by previous investigators - not least the man seen with a child at 10pm.
The importance detectives have put on tracking that man down suggests they may have other information about him they haven't shared; perhaps phone records hold the key, as detectives indicated 10 days ago.
The question as to why it has taken six years for the Tanner sighting to be bottomed out and why e-fits of the 10pm suspect, compiled five years ago, have only now been publicised are uncomfortable ones - but are probably best addressed to the Portuguese authorities, who conducted the first investigation.

by jeanmonroe 15.10.13 1:35

If you discount the JT non-abductor 'sighting' then GM WAS the last person, to see her, in her bed, if you believe what he has said, ad nauseum.

Before that it was KM that WAS the second last person to see her.

As Petermac will tell you EVERY police 'investigation' will concentrate on the LAST person/s to have seen the 'victim' (probably not the right word in this case)

However, one has to arrive at the oldest investigative questions there is:

ACCESS, OPPORTUNITY, MOTIVE.

WHO had 'access'?
Who had 'opportunity'?
And who had a 'motive' to possibly cover up a 'crime'?

If you arrive at the McS, by asking these questions, then that is where Deadwood should be,

If Deadwood has now 'ruled out' JT's 'sighting' then the McS have absolutely NO 'evidence' at all to support their Madeleine WAS 'abducted' claim.

NONE at all!

Which is what the LP, PJ arrived at many years ago.

NO EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE WAS ABDUCTED.

Only the McS SAY so!

But that depended entirely on JT being believed, she SAW Madeleine being 'carried off' which Deadwood has now said is NOT the case.

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 1:36

tiredofthebs wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:
juliet wrote:jeanmonroe, not a dig as your posts are always very insightful. Just sick of the thought of mccann woman and how she shrugs, gurns, sneers at all who question he.
Her sound effects annoy me. I've never heard a pair of curtains make such a noise
Don't you remember the Panorama programme a few years ago when she said that Madeleine was "whoosh-clunked"?

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

by TellTheTruth 15.10.13 1:37

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

Link to BBC page

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 1:40

jeanmonroe wrote:If you discount he non-abductor then GM WAS the last person, to see her, in her bed, if you believe what he has said, ad nauseum.

Before that it was KM that WAS the second last person to see her.

As Petermac will tell you EVERY police 'investigation' will concentrate on the LAST person/s to have seen the 'victim' (probably not the right word in this case)

However, one has to arrive at the oldest investigative questions there is:

ACCESS, OPPORTUNITY, MOTIVE.

WHO had 'access'?
Who had 'opportunity'?
And who had a 'motive' to possibly cover up a 'crime'?

If you arrive at the McS, by asking these questions, then that is where Deadwood should be,

If Deadwood has now 'ruled out' JT's 'sighting' then the McS have NO absolutely 'evidence' at all to support their Madeleine WAS 'abducted' claim.

NONE at all!

Which is what the LP, PJ arrived at many years ago.

NO EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE WAS ABDUCTED.

Only the McS SAY so!

But that depended entirely on JT being believed, which Deadwood has now said is NOT the case.

But hasn't redwood actually done the opposite? Rather than paint Tanner as a liar, he has actually now exonerated her by claiming that her sighting was true.

by TellTheTruth 15.10.13 1:43

jeanmonroe wrote:If you discount he non-abductor then GM WAS the last person, to see her, in her bed, if you believe what he has said, ad nauseum.

Before that it was KM that WAS the second last person to see her.

As Petermac will tell you EVERY police 'investigation' will concentrate on the LAST person/s to have seen the 'victim' (probably not the right word in this case)

However, one has to arrive at the oldest investigative questions there is:

ACCESS, OPPORTUNITY, MOTIVE.

WHO had 'access'?
Who had 'opportunity'?
And who had a 'motive' to possibly cover up a 'crime'?

If you arrive at the McS, by asking these questions, then that is where Deadwood should be,

If Deadwood has now 'ruled out' JT's 'sighting' then the McS have NO absolutely 'evidence' at all to support their Madeleine WAS 'abducted' claim.

NONE at all!

Which is what the LP, PJ arrived at many years ago.

NO EVIDENCE THAT MADELEINE WAS ABDUCTED.

Only the McS SAY so!

But that depended entirely on JT being believed, which Deadwood has now said is NOT the case.

Well said. Excellent points. thumbsup

by sonic72 15.10.13 1:58

I haven't had chance to watch Crimewatch yet, but reading the BBC website I noticed this in their report...

Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry told Crimewatch they were "hopeful and optimistic" after police made a fresh appeal for information.

Mrs McCann said: "We're not the ones that have done something wrong here. It's the person who's gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family."

Why would she say "taken a little girl away' that's so impersonal, as if she is talking about any old girl! Surely she should be saying 'taken OUR little girl away'?

She also said 'the person who's gone into that apartment', again, surely she should be saying OUR apartment, and how does she know it was one person?! We obviously know there were no persons.

By being so impersonal she is deliberately trying to distance herself as far away as possible from having anything to do with Maddy disappearing, all the while trying to turn the focus on the this imaginary person!

by suzyjohnson 15.10.13 2:02

Still catching up with all the posts on the Crimewatch reconstruction but my initial thoughts are that we need to consider what the purpose of this reconstruction actually is. It isn't aimed at people who have been studying the case and who are familiar with information such as the Smith sighting; DP's supposed visit to the apartments; the libel trial etc. One step at a time. It isn't about proving the case immediately, and therefore so much of the material is irrelevant at this stage, but appealing for new witnesses who may be able to corroborate the Smith sighting.

With this in mind, the Tanner sighting has now been formally discounted (and quite possibly the families using the night creche were already interviewed and ruled out by the PJ at the time) which has led the police to ask the public to focus on anyone they might have noticed nearer to 10 pm. Previously the McCanns had insisted, and publicised, that MM had disappeared by 9.15 pm. Because the Smith sighting has not been given prominence, in the news or on the McCann website, there could possibly be a witness who has assumed they must be mistaken because it was a 'fact' that MM had been taken earlier by the Tanner suspect

I don't know if there is accommodation in the area of the Smith sighting but it seems less likely that someone carrying a child in the direction of the beach at almost 10 pm would be someone carrying a child home to bed. Hopefully the programme will enable the police to collect more information to piece together what they have already established. The McCanns were also on the program, which is to be shown in several countries, which could enable prospective witnesses to give additional information regarding them also.

by sonic72 15.10.13 2:11

Is the Crimewatch being broadcast in Portugal?

If it isn't then why not? Surely they would need to appeal to the people who lived in that area too?

by Woofer 15.10.13 2:27

sonic72 wrote:Is the Crimewatch being broadcast in Portugal?

If it isn't then why not? Surely they would need to appeal to the people who lived in that area too?

No apparenty not. One paper (forget which one) said the mccanns had banned it being shown in Portugal because it would upset the PJ. Then another report said the Portuguese had refused to show it, but someone contacted the main TV channels in Portugal and they said they hadn't been asked.

Yes you're totally right - Portugal would be the priority place to screen this because there woud have been more local residents around at that time of year than holiday makers.

by jeanmonroe 15.10.13 2:34

tiredofthebs wrote:
But hasn't redwood actually done the opposite? Rather than paint Tanner as a liar, he has actually now exonerated her by claiming that her sighting was true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which would be fine except that JT's 'memory' from 'shoes to pyjamas' morphed, and improved over time, to become the definitive 'abductor' of Madeleine McCann.

You have to remember she stated off saying 'he was carrying a bundle' which morphed to a 'child'

then she 'saw' no face which morphed into a swarthy, moustashioed foreigner'

She 'saw' the EXACT pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' after conferring with GM days after.

Finally she said 'I SAW Madeleine's abductor'

How did a 'bundle' become, without question 'Madeleine'?

Why didn't she just say 'i saw a man carrying something'?

'He went that way'

by uppatoffee 15.10.13 4:16

Looking at it from a positive point of view, we know the Tanner sighting was nonsense, with JT changing her description of who she saw every 5 minutes. The programme tonight has addressed that and placed the emphasis firmly on the Smith sighting. This family named Gerry as being the person they saw, although Redwood could hardly say that on TV, with the McCanns in the studio with him.

I'm also holding onto the fact that he referred to them as Mr and Mrs McCann. I have been trying to think if I have seen him mention them by name before, and if so how he addressed them then. It just sounded incredibly formal. He also continued to be very careful about his wording of key statements. Kirsty however showed no such care, frequently mentioning abduction.

If SY are laying a trap for the McCanns they would certainly not inform the Crimewatch team of their intentions. There seemed to be a noticeable difference between the language Redwood used and the language Kirsty used.

by Seek truth 15.10.13 5:42

sonic72 wrote:I haven't had chance to watch Crimewatch yet, but reading the BBC website I noticed this in their report...

Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry told Crimewatch they were "hopeful and optimistic" after police made a fresh appeal for information.

Mrs McCann said: "We're not the ones that have done something wrong here. It's the person who's gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family."

Why would she say "taken a little girl away' that's so impersonal, as if she is talking about any old girl! Surely she should be saying 'taken OUR little girl away'?

She also said 'the person who's gone into that apartment', again, surely she should be saying OUR apartment, and how does she know it was one person?! We obviously know there were no persons.

By being so impersonal she is deliberately trying to distance herself as far away as possible from having anything to do with Maddy disappearing, all the while trying to turn the focus on the this imaginary person!

She usually says A LITTLE GIRL. That's because she just CAN'T say it can she? truthfully "TAKEN MY MADELEINE"

And again she look looks away when jerry mentions it, staring at him to avoid the camera at that important speech and for a very long time like a dummy, how can someone turn their face for that long????

That's it hide, but the whole world is not as dumb as you'd like to think. What bad actors, if this was all planned they'd choose better actors, this seems to be a cover up AFTER an unexpected accident. And she did it because her face looks worried he seemed fine, and she has been caught lieing about the Portuguese police etc. then again we can't really go by just their reactions, it's how they've been changing their stories every time and run away from the questions.

See how they never question them properly.

by Seek truth 15.10.13 6:16

They're saying, the person Jane tanner saw has only spoken now after all these years, are they going to get away with it? Was that child in pyjamas too? WTF.

Really? After all those years of investigating?

But they haven't explained why Jane never told them straight away, when They needed to find Madeleine at 10pm or even at 9.15, so she went to sit back down to EAT instead (after seeing a child in pyjamas in a mans arms, had she forgotten, why she'd gone to check on her kids? To CHECK, and she didn't know her friends kids were left alone?

So the libel trial stopped for now to start in November and the judge knew about this, didn't she, they all knew.

. liar

by **tigger** 15.10.13 6:44

'We did nothing wrong' didn't go down well here and neither would it in Germany.

Poor Jane, she lied like a trooper for them and gets kicked in the teeth for her troubles.

by Me 15.10.13 7:04

Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

by ProfessorPPlum 15.10.13 7:22

Perhaps Redwood has taken a 'confusion is good' leaf out of the McCann's book?

by bristow 15.10.13 7:34

Me wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

Cider Andy big grin

by tiny 15.10.13 7:41

bristow wrote:Must say I can't get over the likeness of the Smith sighting man, dead ringer for GM, they showed half his face but you could see without a doubt who it was!

I don't know what to think, I'm swinging from whitewash to trap.

I was on the phone to my sister yesterday and she said the e-fit was Gerry and that kate looked terrified ,and she has never followed the case.

by jowie 15.10.13 7:46

Just caught the tale end of sky interview with Paul Luckman. Saying he did a recon of Jane Tanners evidence and no way could she have seen anything in detail. Also stating that Goncalo Amaral came up with the same conclusions 6 years ago. WELL DONE that man for standing his ground against Holmes !!

by Karen Pinto 15.10.13 7:48

Thats right Jowie, seems to me he is NOT buying McCanns version at all.

by aiyoyo 15.10.13 7:50

Me wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

Excellent observation a la style Sherlock Holmes! Good to see you back Me!

So Redwood's revelation moment is Tanner's faceless man came forward and made himself known to Redwood no less!
Did he even have a mouth to speak? He's Brit no doubt, English speaking no need for translator and all that, not swarthy after all.

The E-fits allegedly been sitting in their private detectives files for years, yet Team Mccann produced many hybrid/morphed version of the faceless man over the years - priceless!

Redwood proclaimed that the unidentified men they seek may have an innocent explanation but on after thought offered 20K reward to nab them for abduction.
The Portuguese are having the last laugh enjoying Scotland Yard's quagmire, while the Daily Mail hides behind trolls to print negatives about the duo.
It's all out in the open all those info that weren't before.

Is Redwood's elaborated and expensive HOAX whitewash remains a $64M question.

by BRODFB 15.10.13 7:54

Me wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but even though they were on a program where Cider Andy stated the timeline had changed Gerry STILL maintained that on his 9:05 check the children's bedroom door was open wider than he left it.

I didn't imagine that did i?

So how could that have happened if the abduction was later?

Strikes me they have a problem in that their stories seem to have focused on the 9:15 sighting.

The thought crossed my kind that maybe Maddie got up to go to the loo before the 9:05 visit. Would sound fairly normal.

by tiny 15.10.13 8:01

Searcher wrote:Portia - my understanding from tonight is that JT saw a child being collected from the night creche - in other words, an innocent but actual sighting. ?

so did deadwood say she was at the same place that Gerry and Wilkins were,but they still never saw her. or has deadwood changed her route

by ChuckieD 15.10.13 8:02

aiyoyo wrote:
So Redwood's revelation moment is Tanner's faceless man came forward and made himself known to Redwood no less!
Did he even have a mouth to speak? He's Brit no doubt, English speaking no need for translator and all that, not swarthy after all.

Re-watching just now and Redwood just said 'the British father' - which makes it all the more unlikely that he's wandered around for the past 6.5 years without realising it was him on this iconic sketch.