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

by Pershing36 15.10.13 9:07

I couldn't stomach the program.

But what I am reading here and elsewhere is it this in a nutshell?

They have dug up the smith's sighting. Spun it with a few charity workers and burglaries and chucked in an e-fit to go alone with man carrying a child.

Is this the major breakthrough?

by TellTheTruth 15.10.13 9:10

riskybuisness wrote:
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.

Perhaps the small child had a very nice engagement ring on her finger that the the burglar took a fancy to. But the ring was stuck SO fast that the poor old burglar had to take the small child too big grin

by tiny 15.10.13 9:11

sami wrote:David Payne and family have been whooshed completely, why ? They were the most friendly with the MCanns, they at least deserved a mention by name when sitting down to dinner.

could be because of the gaspars statement, did this farce resemble the mccanns farce at all or have we got two versions now

by Estelle 15.10.13 9:12

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

How true this is! IMO I have always thought that only when the McCanns have run out of money will this case be solved.

by Shrike 15.10.13 9:21

I might be naive but I would like to think that SY are trying to get more people to come forward with independent sightings of a person wearing a particular style of trouser. As we all know, and as I am sure SY know, the beige, cotton trousers were described in all statements and Mrs Smith went on to further describe the button style (on the legs). This, to me, is a very distinctive style that I have rarely seen. We, and SY, also are fully aware that GM owned a pair of these style of trousers at the time as seen in several photos of him. It is also known that there was a pair of beige trousers seen on the bed in one of the photos taken of the apartment soon after the incident (although I'm not sure if the buttons could be seen). The person descriptions also seem to fit GM and SY know that Mr Smith was 60-80% sure it was GM he saw due to the mannerisms. When light is a little poor I believe that we tend to see those things that stand out, not the very small details of personal ID, but those relating to styles and mannerisms. The man notices his mannerisms, the woman notices the style (maybe).

As it stands, SY have one set of Smith statements, i.e. from persons independent of the T9, relating to the sighting that night, backed up further by a later statement about the mannerisms of GM when leaving the plane at East Midlands holding one of the twins. As it stands that is probably not enough to base a case on but if they if they can get other witnesses to corroborate what GM was wearing on that holiday, or even on the night, and dismiss other persons because they did not own this style of clothing then they are much further down the line. I think it important that Redwood said nothing specific about the clothing as he wants independent persons to report this from their memory. When they call in then maybe there will be a question, "do you remember anything specific about the clothing?".

I just don't get how the whole focus of SY's presentation on CW was on this 10pm sighting. What we saw with the McCanns and the other bits of the recon were just what we all expected and, of course, they would be as the McCanns were there. But the big thing is what Redwood had to say stressing the sighting, which the McCanns have been dismissing all these years because their official JT sighting made that conveniently unlikely. And we all know what has now happened to JT's account of things.

SY also have the eFITs which we understand from news this morning were held back in the McCanns' PI files -they have a likeness to GM and I doubt they would have wanted this in the public domain to back up the Smith's statements.

If SY use this sighting and dismiss any relevance to the links with GM then they are laughing in the face of all of the persons who know so much about this case including GA and the PJ. If they do, that will be the undoing of all of this because too much is known and accessible.

On a final note though, I still have that nagging thought in the back of my head. The PJ (?) defence witness at the libel trial stated in court that SY were only looking at the abduction thoery. That is worrying unless SY are throwing the Portuguese a red herring or, if indeed, the PJ and SY are working together to throw us all, and especially the McCanns, a red herring. However, I wouldn't mind a few Guinesses with the Smith family tonight and to hear what they might have to say (as long as they have not been "got at").

by Lance De Boils 15.10.13 9:23

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.

I haven't finished reading the threads either. So much to read.

Yes, I noticed that and for a split second I expected her to continue, "in a foul mood and that's when it all kicked off."

Of course, she didn't. But, having just finished reading them a book on the sofa, all four of them went and sat on Madeleine's little bed and she read them another story. (Another one?)

by Chimaera 15.10.13 9:27

Okay, so now we all know where we stand. There was no new timeline, just a tweak of the spotlight away from the long discredited Tanner sighting on to the Smith sighting later that evening. No new revelations, just the same old propaganda eschewed by the McCann’s; the same old same old yawn inducing discredited clap trap that regular observers of this mystery have heard for many years now, without one single questioning of its authenticity to silence doubters being addressed by Redwood. If the Crime-watch reconstruction is all that he can put on the table to solve the disappearance of MBM then as a taxpayer I want my money back please.

While the Met’s case now looks dead in the water can we point to anything at all we didn’t know, or at least were unsure about? A close look at the stage upon which this drama is being played upon tells us quite a bit actually. That the BBC programme was an insidious attempt at white-washing the McCann’s image is one conjecture that springs to mind. Regret expressed by the duo over leaving their children alone every single night of the holiday must have passed by unnoticed by the casual observer; in no large part as a result of the powder puff interview of the pair by our Kirsty. Mention could also be made of the factually incorrect airing of the ‘clearing’ of the McCanns of involvement in the crime which was intimated by our being told of the lifting of their Arguidos status. Their selfish approach to the holiday was disguised particularly well with just a passing mention of the tennis lessons, ignoring completely how quickly the children were dumped into the respective playgroups both morning and afternoon.

Also, we can at least say with some high degree of certainty that Redwood will never solve the case because he refuses to acknowledge the several large elephants in the room that are the inconsistencies in the testimonies of those closest to MBM’s disappearance. Anyone who puts the emphasis on pushing forward the investigation by relying on those hilarious E-Fits deserves to get nothing out of this other than ridicule. The BBC is regaling us today, via a News 24 reporter, with the blindingly obvious conclusion that ‘this case will not be solved quickly’. Well I can agree on that at least, though personally I think they are being optimistic thinking it will ever get solved at all.

Other than the Amaral libel case there is no longer anything to look forward to now the crime-watch saga has passed me by. On that depressing note I think I’ll go back into hibernation. Bye all until the next revelation.

by Estelle 15.10.13 9:30

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.]

Also there has been more evidence of David Payne being a mason than any of the others.

by endgame 15.10.13 9:37

Had a quick trawl through papers in France, Italy and Spain. It is reported but almost entirely through press releases from BBC and SY. A couple have it in a prominent position but mostly it is fairly low down the list - 26th story in La Repubblica. I have found one paper in each of Italy, Spain and France allowing comments of which there are not a great deal but they are entirely negative, many of them quite blunt - "the parents killed her" - and most appalled that Madeleine was left alone whilst the parents went out.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.13 9:39

If you are a totally uncritical Pro
then
Madeleine NOT in bed PLUS man seen taking child away from the apartment EQUALS Abduction

But now you have
Madeleine NOT in bed. Which equals Madeleine not in bed

by Guest 15.10.13 9:52

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.

As far as I know, Gerry had never made such a remark about the door previously. It was Kate who said that on the now infamous visit at around 10 that the door was "not the same as we'd left it".

Of course, this is far from the only variation from the original story in last night's programme.

by russiandoll 15.10.13 9:53

Acc to the Mail online SY are looking at trolls posting vile things about the Mcs, which if they include as claimed the face of Kate superimposed onto a photo of Rose West and photos of the couple as Brady and Hindley....has my full backing. Disgusting behaviour.

Redwood had a chance to appeal to the more rational people doubting abduction but he did not take it. He could have quickly said that based on the implausible window of opportunity concluded by JT sighting, he understood people not believing an abduction had happened.
He alluded to a wider window for abduction, but did not say :

We know there has been much speculation and theorising based on this sighting. We as police understand it but we have now dismissed that sighting was of an abductor and are working with another theory, that the abductor was seen later.
May I remind you that there is no evidence that Maddie met with an accident which has been covered up by her parents.
As the timeline now allows for abduction please instead of speculating and theorising based on 10 pm and not 9.15, focus your time on helping us catch this stranger who we believe was walking with Maddie down towards the beach at 10pm.

We are left not knowing what the Met are actually doing whilst being presented with an unbelievable set of coincidences and little if nothing concrete.
Was it GA who said that justice works in silence?

Let us hope that this is the case and that Portugal and the UK can establish the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

DCI Redwood..you said WE ARE FIGHTING FOR MADELEINE.

I am glad to hear it.

by tiny 15.10.13 9:53

Just read on the MMF,that deadwood has found Janes abducter and ruled him out,is this true

by **tigger** 15.10.13 10:04

tiny wrote:Just read on the MMF,that deadwood has found Janes abducter and ruled him out,is this true

So that's how it's played. Can't tell the world JT was lying, so she did see a man. not an abductor with Maddie, we'll just have to forget about those pyjamas and what the hell, they're M&S so pretty well every child under five could have had those on in PdL.

No it's clear as day now, the stupid PJ never found this man who was under their noses all the time due to the many sardine and wine lunches and the language barrier, Jane saw a man who was taking his child from the evening creche, or was carrying a take-away meal wrapped in a blanket or whatever.

Did you see that pig just overhead? Shocked

Well, from what I've heard and read TM has learned a lot from us and reacted accordingly. We've pointed out impossibilities and contradictions, they've got some new best friends now who got rid of those simply by not including them in the latest version of events.

Meanwhile, down in the cellars of CR, Kevin's had a nervous breakdown, unable to keep up with the avalanche of posts he has to read. He's told them he needs Nev, Trev and Tracy to help again but they tell him the money's running out and it's up to him to hold back the tsunami of unregulated publicity.

In other drawing rooms in the UK and beyond, important people are pacing to and fro, foaming at the mouth, phoning their advisors who tell them they've thrown everything at it they could find, everything down to the kitchen sink, the curtains, the happy family myth, the shutters, New Zealand wine, everybody does it, evil men with spots, evil men without spots, new men nobody's noticed for six years. The public aren't eating it - clouds are gathering on the horizon, Wagnerian sounds off-stage, the twilight of the Gods has begun.

At this point - a desperate situation - the armed forces usually select a 'volunteer' to commit a pointless but heroic act to inspire the troops. Said volunteer is sure to lose his life but that's a minor consideration. The morale of the troops is all. Off you go Clarrie! big grin

by garyp 15.10.13 10:08

Bit late to the debate sorry

'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'

Personally I think they are eliminating everything else so they are left with the bare bones without the distractions.
Shifting emphasis to the Smith sighting brings G back into the frame.

Also they stated at the beginning they were reassesing the timeline from 8:30? Maybe I'm wrong on that I will watch it again.

SY are not going to mention all the things that could be used as evidence as this may prejudice the case, so what WASN'T said and who wasn't mentioned is really interesting.

Also by getting rid of JTs sighting leaves a bigger time frame for the cadaver odour to develop as that was one of the things that was difficult to fit in the timeline wasn't it?

by tiny 15.10.13 10:14

tigger wrote:
tiny wrote:Just read on the MMF,that deadwood has found Janes abducter and ruled him out,is this true
So that's how it's played. Can't tell the world JT was lying, so she did see a man. not an abductor with Maddie, we'll just have to forget about those pyjamas and what the hell, they're M&S so pretty well every child under five could have had those on in PdL.

No it's clear as day now, the stupid PJ never found this man who was under their noses all the time due to the many sardine and wine lunches and the language barrier, Jane saw a man who was taking his child from the evening creche, or was carrying a take-away meal wrapped in a blanket or whatever.

Did you see that pig just overhead?

How the hell can deadwood rule this man out when he never existed in the first place big grin

or are sy really trying to get Gerry in the frame

by joyce1938 15.10.13 10:23

Do you all recall how we did wonder and joked about what the reason was that private companies were engaged and payed for findin g evidence . then we said maybe it was to suppress and keep it back ,not to help,would you think it could have been money well spent Fo r some/? joyce1938

by gbwales 15.10.13 10:23

tiny wrote:
tigger wrote:
tiny wrote:Just read on the MMF,that deadwood has found Janes abducter and ruled him out,is this true
So that's how it's played. Can't tell the world JT was lying, so she did see a man. not an abductor with Maddie, we'll just have to forget about those pyjamas and what the hell, they're M&S so pretty well every child under five could have had those on in PdL.

No it's clear as day now, the stupid PJ never found this man who was under their noses all the time due to the many sardine and wine lunches and the language barrier, Jane saw a man who was taking his child from the evening creche, or was carrying a take-away meal wrapped in a blanket or whatever.

Did you see that pig just overhead?
How the hell can deadwood rule this man out when he never existed in the first place:biggrin: or are sy really trying to get Gerry in the frame

Someone who hasn't popped up for 6 years pops up now. Who matched the description perfectly and happened to be carrying their child towards the creche - incredibly convenient.

I have to just keep hoping against hope it's part of a trap, as it's all so absurd.

by Shrike 15.10.13 10:26

tiny wrote:
How the hell can deadwood rule this man out when he never existed in the first place or are sy really trying to get Gerry in the frame

Well Tiny,,,we all know that SY and Redwood know that this man is him, so maybe, just maybe, you are right big grin

by Shrike 15.10.13 10:27

joyce1938 wrote:Do you all recall how we did wonder and joked about what the reason was that private companies were engaged and payed for findin g evidence . then we said maybe it was to suppress and keep it back ,not to help,would you think it could have been money well spent Fo r some/? joyce1938

Yes Joyce, they are in the control of their paymasters as they are a business.

by Guest 15.10.13 10:30

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 7:04 am

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.

I thought I had seen that and thought WTF, I can't ever remember this said by GM before.

So basically, by saying that, he is saying that either whoever checked before him had looked into the room and left the door wider than he had left it, (which I can't remember ever reading in witness statements) OR the abductor was already in there, and then waited until around 9.50 to take Madeleine.

by Guest 15.10.13 10:31

russiandoll wrote:
SY have shone a spotlight on a man carrying a child upright and binned the JT sighting. I think they also have no man taking a 2 yr old home wearing similar pjs to Maddie, walking past what would within 45 minutes become a crime scene.

A man with an average weight 2 yr old across his arms? He would make things much better for him and the child to carry a little one upright against his body keeping himself comfortable and a child on that very cool night warm against his body.
Did a father really drop off his child at crèche clad only in pjs? If so, would he not, if cold enough for him to need a jacket when going to pick her up, think of taking it off and covering his little one with it?

All way too implausible for me. As Victor Meldrew said........ I DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Not only upright....that quick glimpse we had of the later sighting showed a child being carried against the left shoulder... smilie

by Lance De Boils 15.10.13 10:32

Now I've slept on it, I am managing to find speech. Last night, it had been adbucted from me, by that BB Crime-botch last night.

A few observations, things that struck me as I was watching it. I know at least a couple of these have been mentioned previously, but I haven't got time (= am too lazy) to trawl back through to remind myself of who said what.

1. GM said that when Madeleine was born she was, "almost perfectly formed."

In my experience, all first-time parents to a newborn baby - especially to a baby with no immediately visual abnormality - thinks their baby is "just so... perfect. Perfectly formed little fingers and toes, perfectly formed fingernails, eyelashes, feet, nose." A new parent, can't help studying their new baby's features and marvelling at this brand new life, this perfect little person that they have created. That they are in awe of.

Yet Gerry says that when his first-born entered the world, he saw an almost perfectly formed baby.

Can any inference be taken from this?

2. MO was made to look quite suspect, imo.

Seeming very keen to keep getting up from the table and disappearing.

3. The bed was ruffled up with actor-Madeleine asleep in it. Yet after she "disappeared" from it, somebody tidied the bed up

Straightened the covers and folded down a corner, placing toy and blanket down neatly. Who did this? Madeleine - a half-asleep < 4 year old - after getting out of bed on her own? An abductor with OCD tendencies?

4. Kate: "everything was lovely... and then Gerry came back..." (not verbatim)

I've more to add.

by Lance De Boils 15.10.13 10:34

candyfloss wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 7:04 am

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.
I thought I had seen that and thought WTF, I can't ever remember this said by GM before.

So basically, by saying that, he is saying that either whoever checked before him had looked into the room and left the door wider than he had left it, (which I can't remember ever reading in witness statements) OR the abductor was already in there, and then waited until around 9.50 to take Madeleine.

They way they filmed it, it looked to me almost as though they were trying to set MO up.

by Guest 15.10.13 10:35

Maybe there are negociatings behind the scenes going on. One or both of the Mccanns will own up, as long as the T7 are left out of things and not persecuted for obstruction of justice?

- e.g JT did see someone, but just the wrong person
- no mention of the (fabricated) last sighting of Madeleine by Payne
- no mention of the Oldfield check (did not happen, that makes much more sense than his wobly statements)

Anyway, this is what we are left with:

- no last sighting since hightea (or maybe even before because we have not seen watertight evidence) other than the parents.

-No visual checks between 8.30 and 10.00 hours other than the parents

-no mention of points of entries, curtains windows or shutters (no mention let alone proof what so ever of
another person other than the parents in the appartement)

-enquiries about a man that could fit GM's description walking with a child in the wrong direction if he were a holidaying parent in PdL.

At first I was really upset and totally baffled by CW, but actually it is progress in the right direction. And bonus: it ties in with GA's original thoughts and linies of questioning so it is certainly no help for the Mccanns in the libel case.

by Dr What 15.10.13 10:36

The only point I can think of as to why Redwood concentrated on burglars, charity workers, people talking in the street[?], is that he is hoping one of this fraternity will have seen something on that night whilst engaged in their particular activity, that will back up the Smith sighting and will come forward.
I really can not believe that Redwood thinks that potential thieves and burglars turn into child kidnappers overnight. But they might have seen something.

by Lance De Boils 15.10.13 10:37

PeterMac wrote:If you are a totally uncritical Pro
then
Madeleine NOT in bed PLUS man seen taking child away from the apartment EQUALS Abduction

But now you have
Madeleine NOT in bed. Which equals Madeleine not in bed

by **PeterMac** 15.10.13 10:39

On Yahoo
this is a good one
"The Metropolitan Police team refuses to be critical of the previous inquiry in an effort to foster good relations with Portuguese police."

refuses to be critical of an investigation which ruled out the TANNER sighting on day ONE ? ? ?
Not 6 years later.

by Guest 15.10.13 10:44

15 October 2013 Last updated at 08:25

Madeleine McCann: Crimewatch response 'overwhelming'

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

Kate McCann recalls the moment she realised that Madeleine was not in bed

Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have said they had an "overwhelming response" to an appeal on the BBC's Crimewatch programme.
Officers suggested that Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in 2007 bore hallmarks of a "pre-planned abduction".
Scotland Yard said it was also looking into possible links to burglaries and bogus charity collections in the area.
It said officers would be following up the lines of inquiry provided by more than 300 phone calls and 170 emails.
Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, was three years old when she disappeared from her parents' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on 3 May 2007.
Police outlined their latest findings in the search for Madeleine on BBC One's Crimewatch on Monday.

Analysis

[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.

Detectives released two e-fits of a man seen carrying a child in Praia da Luz at 22:00 on the night Madeleine went missing and it was revealed that Madeleine's mother returned to the apartment to check on her children at around the same time.
Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said the appeal "went better than expected" with many of the calls received from British people who had been at the resort at the time but had not previously contacted the Met.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme a number of different names for the "key" 10pm sighting" were mentioned while several callers suggested the same name.
Mr Mather said "it is always significant" if different callers provided the same name.
DCI Redwood, the senior Metropolitan Police investigating officer, said a number of men had been seen by witnesses in the area on the day Madeleine vanished and one theory was they could have been carrying out reconnaissance.
He said they wanted to track down men seen "lurking suspiciously" near the McCanns' apartment block.

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

Det Ch Insp Andy Redwood said Madeleine could have been abducted later than first thought

The Metropolitan Police say their inquiries have led to the timeline and "accepted version of events" surrounding Madeleine's disappearance being significantly changed.
DCI Redwood said it had been a "revelation moment" when police discovered a man seen by the McCanns' friend Jane Tanner at 21:15 was almost certainly an innocent British holiday-maker collecting his two-year-old daughter from a nearby creche.
He said: "Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of 3 May has now given us a shift of emphasis.
"It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms."
Crimewatch featured a detailed reconstruction lasting close to 25 minutes and covering events leading up to and surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.
The film is also to be shown in the Netherlands, Germany and Irish Republic this week as tourists from those countries were known to be in the resort at the time.

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

The appeal has generated interest across Europe, as Richard Bilton reports

DCI Redwood said he would be travelling to the Netherlands and Germany to continue the appeal.
Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry told the programme they were "hopeful and optimistic" after the 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."

Inquiry: Key dates

3 May 2007: Madeleine disappears from apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz. Police notify border police and airports and hundreds join a search for her
15 May 2007: British-born Robert Murat is made an official suspect or "arguido"
26 May 2007: Police issue description of man seen carrying what could have been a child the night Madeleine went missing
7 Sept 2007: Detectives make Mr and Mrs McCann "arguidos"
19 March 2008: McCanns accept £550,000 libel damages from Express newspapers over allegations they were responsible for Madeleine's death
15 July 2008: Mr Murat settles for £600,000 in damages from UK newspapers which alleged he was involved in disappearance
21 July 2008: Portuguese shelve investigation and lift "arguido" status of the McCanns and Mr Murat
13 May 2011: UK PM David Cameron writes to McCanns announcing "new action" by Met Police
4 July 2013: The Met Police launch a formal investigation and say they are investigating 38 "persons of interest"
14 Oct 2013: Police reveal new details of the investigation on Crimewatch

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

The two e-fit images released are of a man a family had seen with a blond-haired child of three or four, possibly wearing pyjamas, heading away from the McCanns' holiday apartment.
DCI Redwood said he could be the man who took Madeleine - but there could be an innocent explanation.
He also said there had been a four-fold increase in the number of burglaries in the area between January and May 2007 and one possible scenario was that Madeleine had disturbed a burglar.
Police are also looking at possible bogus charity collectors operating in the area at the time and have released two e-fit images of Portuguese men they would like to identify.
Police have also released e-fit images of two men seen in the area around the time that Madeleine disappeared. Two are of fair-haired men who fit similar descriptions.
Portuguese police shelved their inquiry in 2008 but Scotland Yard began a review of the case in May 2011 and opened a formal investigation in July this year.
BBC News correspondent Tom Burrridge in Praia da Luz said Portuguese police have not commented on the Met investigation but have given the impression that they are co-operating well with their British counterparts.
Mark Williams-Thomas, a child protection expert, said it was a "pity" there were no plans to show the Crimewatch appeal in Portugal.
"There are a lot of residents there who may have information," he told Today.
He suggested further progress in the case required Portuguese police to reopen their investigation.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Police have issued e-fit images of men they want to trace
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]An image (right) showing how Madeleine might have looked aged nine
Madeleine and her brother and sister were left in the apartment at 20:30 while her parents dined with friends at a nearby restaurant.
Mr McCann checked on them at 21:05 and Mrs McCann raised the alarm at 22:00.
In the programme, Mrs McCann described the moment that "panic kicked in" after returning to the apartment to find her daughter missing.

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

by riskybuisness 15.10.13 10:45

candyfloss wrote:

I thought I had seen that and thought WTF, I can't ever remember this said by GM before.

So basically, by saying that, he is saying that either whoever checked before him had looked into the room and left the door wider than he had left it, (which I can't remember ever reading in witness statements) OR the abductor was already in there, and then waited until around 9.50 to take Madeleine.

That bit was always part of the smoke and mirrors. Anyone whos child has hidden on you in the house and you have not been able to find them knows that within a few minutes you have run through the house pushing the doors any which way they go. There is no way that you would recall what the door was like before you knew your child was actually really missing. The only time that would not apply is if you got to an external door that had been left open - as at that point the horror of may have happened as you see the door open would probably stick in your mind.

The bit in all of this I just don't get is being able to get the friends to go along with them. What would make anyone do that- fear of them having all been guilty of neglect is one theory but I don't buy that as one couple are said to have had a baby monitor (still not my idea of proper parenting!) so they would probably have got off the hook and what about the mother of one of the adults who was also there- so why stick to the story. The only reasonable theory is they were all either involved in something they have to cover up or they really believe that Maddie was taken. This also applies to the relatives at home -I can only think they all still believe that she was abducted, what relative would stand by and watch all this if they thought otherwise.