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

by Guest 15.10.13 11:59

Julian Druker ‏@Julian5News [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
BBC's Crimewatch [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] appeal gets 6.7m audience. (Last month's prog got 3.1m)

No wonder with all that hype and melodrama.

by jeanmonroe 15.10.13 12:01

It wuz the pyjamas wot did for them!

GM 'insistance' every time he is in the media that 'it must have been Madeleine' because Jane has described 'independantly' what PYJAMAS Madeleine was wearing. I never told her. How would she know? etc"

Jane 'seeing' Madeleine being carried off in the very pyjamas that Kate had dressed her in was the absolute bedrock of their whole 'abduction' claim.

Jane Tanner HAD to 'see' the EXACT pyjamas, frilly, flowery and pinky aspect etc, for the McCanns 'claim' of 'abduction' to be stated as their 'evidence'.

"our friend, Jane, has described the exact pyjamas, Madeleine was wearing, as Kate and i have confirmed she WAS wearing"

We know of course that the only part of the pyjamas JT 'saw' were predominately WHITE, not pink.

Madeleine is not here,

Jane Tanner didn't see her being carried off.

There is still not a shred of 'evidence' of an 'abduction', pre-planned or not, as claimed only by the McCanns..

by AndyB 15.10.13 12:05

jeanmonroe wrote:

There is still not a shred of 'evidence' of an 'abduction', pre-planned or not, as claimed only by the McCanns..

And Scotland Yard

by tiny 15.10.13 12:07

jeanmonroe wrote:It wuz the pyjamas wot did for them!

GM 'insistance' every time he is in the media that 'it must have been Madeleine' because Jane has described 'independantly' what PYJAMAS Madeleine was wearing. I never told her. How would she know? etc"

Jane 'seeing' Madeleine being carried off in the very pyjamas that Kate had dressed her in was the absolute bedrock of their whole 'abduction' claim.

Jane Tanner HAD to 'see' the EXACT pyjamas, frilly, flowery and pinky aspect etc, for the McCanns 'claim' of 'abduction' to be stated as their 'evidence'.

"our friend, Jane, has described the exact pyjamas, Madeleine was wearing, as Kate and i have confirmed she WAS wearing"

We know of course that the only part of the pyjamas JT 'saw' were predominately WHITE, not pink.

Madeleine is not here,

Jane Tanner didn't see her being carried off.

There is still not a shred of 'evidence' of an 'abduction', pre-planned or not, as claimed only by the McCanns..

Jane Tanner is a fantasist and a liar,the only reason she saw bundleman was because GERRY had been seen by the Smith Family,she is in up to her neck

by Guest 15.10.13 12:07

Comments allowed on this article........

Madeleine McCann Appeal: Response Welcomed

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

by DIBarlow 15.10.13 12:08

candyfloss wrote:Julian Druker ‏@Julian5News [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
BBC's Crimewatch [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] appeal gets 6.7m audience. (Last month's prog got 3.1m)

No wonder with all that hype and melodrama.

So, that's at least 6.7m UK viewers with the message that SY has discounted the JT sighting, the one that TM put SO much emphasis on, the one that Kate wrote about in her bewk, and instead put the SMITH family sighting at the top of their list.
I wonder what Gerry thinks about that?

by Guest 15.10.13 12:09

candyfloss wrote:Comments allowed on this article........

Madeleine McCann Appeal: Response Welcomed

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

752 comments so far.

by Guest 15.10.13 12:15

Simon Hare ‏@SimonHareBBC [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
BBC Crimewatch editor says some callers had given the same name for a man spotted carrying a child towards the beach in Praia da Luz [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ConcernedCitizen 15.10.13 12:18

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

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

the plane picture is what mr smith saw as being the man he saw that night
the top efit is like a drawn potrait of gm 6 year ago

... yes there IS a likeness.

If Smith did see GM carrying a child (possibly Madeleine) then I think you can see why Mr. Smith was struck by the manner in which GM was walking down the steps of the plane. This is because the man Smith saw carrying a child, more than likely, would have had his head lowered down, if he was keen not to be seen by other people .... exactly as you see GM as he is stepping off the plane. So the first e-fit, IMO, is probably very representative of the man's expression(as Smith would have seen it) with his head lowered. The 2nd e-fit may be more representative of the man as he would appear if he were looking up/straight ahead. Hence why there 'appears' to be a discrepancy in the square and pointed chins b/w the 2 e-fits.

... and you can view a composite image of 2 e-fits here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Several people have called in since the Crimewatch program aired, to give the same name for the e-fit man, so it will be interesting to hear what person they have named, if this information is ever made public knowledge.

by Mirage 15.10.13 12:20

jozi wrote:
Mirage wrote:I have just watched "Crimewatch's Madeleine McCann reconstruction" on Youtube. There's a part I wanted to revisit having noticed it last night.
It concerns the early part where Kirsty Young is asking the McCanns about the "Madeleine-shaped hole" in their lives. G is replying with the bit about big family occasions being the worst and K chips in at around 0.28 to echo the same sentiment. At 0.29 G does what looks like one of his involuntary body squirms, but as he does so, he seems - to my eye anyway - to bump against K's arm as if signalling something. If you freeze/stagger the action you should see it. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say it seems to knock her slightly sideways. Afterwards she seems to dry up and look upset and then uncomfortable. She attempts a slight smile but it doesn't look right. I hope the link is correct. Anyway, it's the Telegraph one
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Hi Mirage I watched the same clip yesterday and remarked how Kate put her gob in it big time,if you look at it again she not only echo Gerry's version of missing Maddy but goes on to say its only at family gatherings that they miss her and then adds " that's all " Wow, no wonder Gerry prodded her ?

Hi Jozi. I've seen countless occasions where K has overspoken G, usually when he's tying himself in knots. On these occasions she has been the more confident of the two IMO. A striking example of this is in the Expresso interview of 2008.
However, I thought K was the weaker party in this interview last night. It put me in mind of the original appeal in PdL where G has his hand on her upper arm and grips her when she says something that jars (shown in his facial expression IMO).
I saw a return of the smug look in that clip of last night for a fleeting moment after he sat back again.
I also thought Kirsty Young's face was a picture. She put me in mind of the blonde Swedish guest on the Skavlan interview (you know - the one where G was waxing lyrical about heat-seeking helicopters and how the Portuguese don't have a navy!!). It also reminded me of Sandra Felgueiras' face when it was "Ask the Dogs, Sandra".
One thing is for certain, old alliances change and sometimes dissipate under changing scenarios and new pressures. I think we are already seeing something shifting in respect of the T7 if what was "not said" last night is anything to go by.

by Pershing36 15.10.13 12:22

candyfloss wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Comments allowed on this article........

Madeleine McCann Appeal: Response Welcomed

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
752 comments so far.

Seems 'We didn't do anything wrong' is really infuriating people. Even those who believe in the abduction. That one statement could well be something that turns public opinion against for the first time in years.

by Guest 15.10.13 12:23

Two callers name man from Madeleine e-fit pictures

Last updated Tue 15 Oct 2013

Following the broadcast of a fresh BBC Crimewatch appeal into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, two independent callers last night phoned police with the same name for the man shown on the new e-fit picture.

Viewers were shown a pair of images of a man with dark hair, which are based on descriptions from two witnesses who were staying in Praia da Luz, when the three-year-old went missing in 2007.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Viewers on Crimewatch last night were shown two new e-fits of a man police want to speak to in connection with the disappearance. Credit: Police Handout
DCI Andy Redwood, the senior officer investigating the the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, said that the evidence of the kidnapping had "the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would have undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance."
The two new e-fits of a man were broadcast, while police said they had effectively ruled out a previous key sighting of a different man carrying a little girl.

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

by tiny 15.10.13 12:25

candyfloss wrote:Two callers name man from Madeleine e-fit pictures
Last updated Tue 15 Oct 2013

Following the broadcast of a fresh BBC Crimewatch appeal into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, two independent callers last night phoned police with the same name for the man shown on the new e-fit picture.

Viewers were shown a pair of images of a man with dark hair, which are based on descriptions from two witnesses who were staying in Praia da Luz, when the three-year-old went missing in 2007.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Viewers on Crimewatch last night were shown two new e-fits of a man police want to speak to in connection with the disappearance. Credit: Police Handout
DCI Andy Redwood, the senior officer investigating the the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, said that the evidence of the kidnapping had "the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction that would have undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance."
The two new e-fits of a man were broadcast, while police said they had effectively ruled out a previous key sighting of a different man carrying a little girl.

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

well these 2 callers must know this man to have named him.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 12:31

Juulcy wrote: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.

Own up???

The McCanns will never own up. Ever. How can they? They have lied to everyone for 6 years already and went on world tours meeting the pope and dragging in politicians, journalists etc. They cannot own up now. This is much bigger than them. I suspect they would meet with a convenient accident if they ever so much as hinted they were going to come clean.

by sofa 15.10.13 12:37

Totally agree with you tiredofthebs

They will never own up, and Mss Young is right to 'lick their ass' when you think about what happened to Dando, you better do as you told. Scary

by Cheshire Cat 15.10.13 12:49

sofa wrote:Totally agree with you tiredofthebs

They will never own up, and Mss Young is right to 'lick their ass' when you think about what happened to Dando, you better do as you told. Scary

Pat Browns analysis of Crimewatch can be found here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I agree with her analysis although if the Smith sighting is eventually dismissed in the same way as the Tanner sighting, then there will be no 'sighting' of an abducter to back up the abducter story. But without the other pieces of the puzzle (cadaver dog hits etc) you can understand how people will believe the abduction story. I just overheard a conversation about last nights CW, intelligent people who fell for the spin hook, line and sinker. They finished off with a dig at the 'bloody useless' Portuguese Police.

by tegan1973 15.10.13 12:56

sofa wrote:Totally agree with you tiredofthebs

They will never own up, and Mss Young is right to 'lick their ass' when you think about what happened to Dando, you better do as you told. Scary

Kirsty Young just can't do hard hitting. She is the wrong person to be hosting Crimewatch

by Ayniia 15.10.13 13:01

Lance De Boils wrote:

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?

We couldn't make that up, could we?!
So WHO tired the bed up before the GNR arrive? (supposing / believing Madeleine slept in it for a bit that night... )
A- Madeleine?
B- the abductor?
C- cuddle cat?

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 13:03

I am wondering if this is 'Night Creche man'? but why claim he was picking his child up from the crèche? when he was actually just leaving the Tapas? perhaps Tanner did see him but just spun him 45degrees to suit the agenda....

Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine we left the Tapas bar to go home, we walked across the MW reception area, crossed the road and a semi circular path to return to the apartment, were we put the children to bed and a short while later did the same ourselves. I do not remember seeing or hearing anyone during our return to the apartment. When I crossed the road outside the MW reception I remember there were cars parked, I remember taking some time to see if I could cross the road because there were cars parked to my left and I was carrying I****. They were about six metres away from me and i calculate that some (inaudible) metres from the back of Gerry's apartment, I do not remember anything about these cars, it was normal for cars to be parked there and in the morning they were no longer there. My wife mentioned on the following day that she vaguely remembered someone calling "Madeleine, Madeleine", this was after we had crossed the road from the MW reception and before entering our apartment. She does not remember where the sound came from or whether it was in an urgent tone, not paying any more attention to it and only remembered the following day when we heard about Madeleine's disappearance". OK, before going on the next part, do you remember at what time you left'

SC: Humm... vaguely, I think it was what was put in the statement, the same, the leaving the restaurant, the way back to the apartment, looking to my left to check that the way was clear and I didn't see anything....My wife vaguely remembers hearing "Madeleine, Madeleine" and that was all until the following morning when I saw the television.

NB I**** is a 3 and a half year old girl

Pity Mrs C couldn't have been a bit more clearer about what she heard..... especially at that time!

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

by ultimaThule 15.10.13 13:05

Who?What?Where? wrote:
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.

It's an attempt by the most unempathetic pair anyone would ~~dread~~ wish to meet to appear to be loving caring ~~responsible~~ parents. As if.

Along with GM's 'proud' moment as he stood framed in the doorway gazing at his 3 sleeping infants, the image of Madeline playing with her mother's engagement ring' is intended as another 'aw, bless' moment to encourage a ~~deluded~~ doting public to reach for their chequebooks/debit/credit cards - or, as the pink one exhorted, just send cash in an envelope to Madeleine/Rothley - and get the Fund's tills ringing again.

Both of these fond anecdotes have the hallmark of brass rings and only a mind that's attached to brass balls would expect such shameless exploitation of the kindness of strangers to disguise what is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Out of curiousity, can anyone recall if there is mention in the bewk of Madeleine playing with said ring - as she allegedly enjoyed doing on numerous occasions - or is this another ~~piece of fiction~~ of the new improved revelations we were promised last night?

by MoonGoddess 15.10.13 13:11

ultimaThule wrote:
Who?What?Where? wrote:
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.
It's an attempt by the most unempathetic pair anyone would ~~dread~~ wish to meet to appear to be loving caring ~~responsible~~ parents. As if.

Along with GM's 'proud' moment as he stood framed in the doorway gazing at his 3 sleeping infants, the image of Madeline playing with her mother's engagement ring' is intended as another 'aw, bless' moment to encourage a ~~deluded~~ doting public to reach for their chequebooks/debit/credit cards - or, as the pink one exhorted, just send cash in an envelope to Madeleine/Rothley - and get the Fund's tills ringing again.

Both of these fond anecdotes have the hallmark of brass rings and only a mind that's attached to brass balls would expect such shameless exploitation of the kindness of strangers to disguise what is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Out of curiousity, can anyone recall if there is mention in the bewk of Madeleine playing with said ring - as she allegedly enjoyed doing on numerous occasions - or is this another ~~piece of fiction~~ of the new improved revelations we were promised last night?

Still digesting it all but it really was a "hearts and minds" exercise, and if the conversation that Cheshire Cat overheard is anything to go by..... it worked!!

by zodiac 15.10.13 13:16

TellTheTruth

[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.

"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."

yes

I haven't watched the CW TV programme. I've been reading this thread. All the while reading this thread. This interview in the video posted below has been swirling around in my head.

GM @ 4.40: that person almost got caught
SF @ 4.47: By who?
GM @ 4.48: By Jane.

by stillsloppingout 15.10.13 13:17

stillsloppingout wrote:Post's this morning have been asking why AR did not sit with the McCann's , which is the normal protocol .

My take is ;

To give the impression he is keeping a professional distance , by not sitting next to them ,he is giving them a clear platform to communicate there point without the Officer there , which people now due to Phillpott's etc, associate copper in the middle with guilty party either side .

It is clever strategy by there team only, and NOT for the common good .

Pat Brown's blog today, sums it up perfectly IMO . [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Furthermore , why bits have been cut .

Because SY would have looked at the finished product , then read site's like this ,noted the pitfalls and acted on them .

There was nothing last night that inspires me with any hope . BTW AND I WILL POST IN BIG LETTTERS . KNOWING HOW THE NATIONAL PRESS WORK . I FULLY EXPECT THEM TO TRACE , OR APPEAL FOR THIS MYSTERY MAN ,THE ONE CARRYING HIS CHILD INNOCENTLY , TO COME FORWARD NOW ? TO TELL HIS STORY .

THEY WOULD ALWAYS DO THIS . BUT I BET THEY DONT BECAUSE THIS MAN DOES NOT EXIST . HE IS JUST A CONVENIENT FIGURE OF THE METS IMAGINATION , TO GAIN A TIMELINE AND TIDY LOOSE ENDS .

' FIND THE BUNDLEMAN PROOVE YOU DID IT !!!!!!! '

JUST to ad clarity . ill amend the last bit in bold letters . I would expect the press to , seek BOTH men.

The one who has come forward , [ he has a story to tell, fancy being the suspect for several years !!! ] and also an appeal for the mystery man to also make himself known [ the family are desperate etc. we beg etc ]. the prior can tell his story , the latter to confirm who , what ,where and why . ?

by Humanist 15.10.13 13:20

I am terribly disappointed by this programme and the subsequent kicking of the child of Madeleine once again.
I am not surprised however.
Brought you to you by the country that invaded Iraq and Libya and destroyed both of them, killed hundreds of thousands and left many orphaned.
They also used phosphorous and such.
So in the light of that Maddie is just one child.
If they can get away with the murder of innocent civilians en masse for no justification other than greed,
they will certainly get away with this.

For those of you who still think you live in a free country my heart weeps for you.

by dontbelieveaword 15.10.13 13:30

Please can I get this straight?

The Irish family report the sighting of a man carrying a child and the police create an e-fit and release this as being the potential abductor.

Then, the Irish man calls back after seeing GM carrying one of the twins down the steps and as the manner is similar to the sighting he is 60 - 80% convinced it is GM he saw that night.

So the police go with the sighting and the e-fit but choode to ignore the second contact the Irish man had saying that he thought it could have been GM?

How can they believe one half of his story but completely disregard the rest??