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

Seek truth wrote: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.


. 

BRODFB wrote:

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.

ChuckieD wrote:

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.

jeanmonroe wrote: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!

tiny wrote:Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

riskybuisness wrote:My first post, I used to visit the original forum a lot, hoping for progress, then got so sick of the whole thing I gave up and only look in here every now and again. I have no idea what actually happened to this little girl, but I do think that her parents and co. have tried to cover up the events of that night in a fog of misdirection.  Whether that was to cover bad parenting or worse I have no idea.  

What I do think has not been completely looked at is why all the comings and goings from the dinner table. Has anyone ever said if that was the normal state of play for this group- not just at diner but in the bars the previous nights/ previous trips and home on nights out etc.   What would make young (ish) upwardly mobile professionals need to leave the table every 1/2 - 1hr or so.- If not the norm then that would be strange in itself, if the norm including bars then the to and fro wondering may have had little to do with the checking on children an instead perhaps were for another reason.


2nd thing on my mind was with all the to and fro that was going on in the apartment and routes to it, it must have been like the hall seen out of Risky Business, if any planned abductor (crime gang) was about they would have run a mile before going anywhere near that apartment that night.  So that leaves a chance abduction  or her leaving herself to go look for her missing parents then being snatched or in an accident or an accident and cover up.  

If as most on here seem to think its was the cover up option why would the others go along with it - that would be insane unless...... 


I am not sure about the white wash theory- surely if they were trying to do that - they would have said/done nothing as the Smith efit cannot help the mccans.   

However, I now think that this case will never be solved unless one of the parties involved can no longer live with themself and comes forward with clear information and gives a better picture of events that night -( may be it was an abduction/ may be kate had been in contact with many dead people the week before her holiday/ may be the hire car had been driven to turkey before they had it - As the law in turkey is a car must have a body bag capable of transporting a 16 stone body - so dead bodies in boots must be common there) and we will all be surprised but while any polices force PJ and SY have to stumble their way through the fog the group created it can only be an uphill battle.

The Rooster wrote:Rooster checking out.

MoonGoddess wrote:

tiny wrote:Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

She didn't see bundleman, she saw 'night crèche daddy' whose child happened to have similar Pyjamas to Madeleine's....... I think....

MRNOODLES wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:Imagine that, hey? You "invent" an abductor and the Met then go and bloody track him down and eliminate him!  

GM, 'You just made that up about eliminating night creche man'.

SY, 'Oh yeah, what makes you say that?'

GM, 'Cos we made him up in the first place...... oh shit!'

TellTheTruth wrote:[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.

tiny wrote:

MoonGoddess wrote:

tiny wrote:Can some one help me out here,re Jane Tanner,if deadwood has said she didn't see bundleman how come this child had the same clothes on that madeleine had and for 6 years we have had this rammed down our throats.i didn't watch the farce and it is taking ages to catch up.

She didn't see bundleman, she saw 'night crèche daddy' whose child happened to have similar Pyjamas to Madeleine's....... I think....

thanks,but I am not buying that,because deadwood still has not explained why Gerry and Wilkins didn't see her, from what I can see reading through this thread

russiandoll wrote:Sorry if repeating but E Holmes on Sky was live speaking to John Luckman of the Portugal News Algarve newspaper. He was asked to comment on CW and said 2 key things stood out for him.

1. The discrediting of JT sighting. He had a photographer in the area who was present at a walk-through of this sighting.
   Clear that she could not have " identified that man "

 inference, she did not make a mistake. she could not have seen what she claimed.


2. The focus on what detective Amaral said was their key man,,Smithman.  JL said loud and clear to EH that SY have come to the same conclusion as the man who was the lead in the original investigation.

 EH tried to criticise local police for not making enough of local break-ins and burglaries, 6 of which had been i.d'd by SY.
 JL was having none of that, he had asked around and had found nothing to back that up and for sure nothing in the crucial week.

Pershing36 wrote:Daybreak are following closely.  They have apparently had 300 calls and 170 emails.  

The new focus is on burglaries that increased in the area.  In one apparently the burglar peered into a cot.  Daybreak is a McCann feast this morning with old LK at the helm.

MaryB wrote:The man supposedly peering into a cot was the year before.   But it's a good story.  Why bother with the fine details.

suzyjohnson wrote: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.

Ashwarya wrote:Apologies if I am repeating points other people have made (running late for work so haven't got time to read all the posts since last night before I go) but having watched the ludicrous Crimewatch last night the following occurred to me:

Redwood is using McCann vocabulary all the time, speaking of keys and jigsaws and unlocking. 

Nothing on that programme was new or revelatory.  How dare Redwood imply that any of it was something his team had discovered or worked out for themselves without the PJ having got there first and checked it all out and dismissed it?  Apart from things they weren't allowed to pursue, of course, like the Smith sighting which is suddenly "on message".  Also there was no mention last night of the phone records, again something the PJ were prevented from using.

Having recently returned from PdL I don't think there was any residential accommodation that the 10.00 pm McStroller could have been heading towards where the Smith family saw him - it is mostly pubs and restaurants and then the beach and rocks.  Nor was it an obvious route from the crèche to any Ocean Club accommodation - far from it.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:It is also a horrendously big leap to try and link some petty thieves to the abduction of a child. 

Yes - I can just picture the scene at the local pawn/ knock off shop- Well we have some rings a few credit cards and passports to sell- Oh and wait whats your rates for this small child-   .  Never in a million years.  If she was snatched it must have been a spur of the moment thing no organised gang would have gone near such a busy apartment.

And why the hell did sy not ask if anyone in the area heard Madeleine crying the night before as per Mrs Fenns statement or saw the "soothing couple" particularly as Yvonne Martin in her statement said KATE stated Madeleine was taken by a couple?

Complete rubbish. 

Unless Redwood is playing a game, he and his team have completely discredited the British police.