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

by Seek truth 15.10.13 16:40

Smiths sighting is the same as Tanners sighting on here, both girls were in pyjamas.
So the father has only come out now saying it was him at 9.15 carrying his daughter barefoot in her pyjamas from the crèche? (Crime watch)
And the smiths:

"The suspect – a white man in his 30s of medium build – is believed to have been seen walking towards the ocean carrying a young pyjama-wearing child at around 10pm on the night Madeleine disappeared."

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

by ChuckieD 15.10.13 16:46

Was it aired in Germany last night, does anybody know? I was under the impression it was being aired tonight. I live in Germany so was going to go to the pub to watch it as I don't have German TV, only British.

by ShuBob 15.10.13 16:46

Please can we stop with the name-calling e.g. Deadwood instead of Redwood? I don't see what he's done to warrant the sort of abuse he's getting. The same way folk get upset when Amaral is referred to as Amoral in certain quarters, Deadwood is unacceptable IMO.

Just my tuppence worth roses

by SixMillionQuid 15.10.13 16:47

Nereid wrote:Am working on transcript and this is what Redwood says at 30.42 live on the Crimewatch programme
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Redwood:           Yes, on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared between 3.30 and 5.30 there were 4 charity collector events where 2 men went to residential apartments in streets very close to her apartment. And certainly on one of those events at 4 pm there’s an e-fit that hte public can look at. A man with black hair.

Kirsty:                   Right

Redwood:           Erm that we really need to understand more about and identify who this person is."

Can anyone please double-check if I'm hearing this right?

Freudian slip?

Long time observer and poster on other forums but first post here.

Glad you picked this up because I heard him say it and my head spun round 360 like an owl.

by endgame 15.10.13 16:54

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Nereid wrote:Am working on transcript and this is what Redwood says at 30.42 live on the Crimewatch programme
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Redwood:           Yes, on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared between 3.30 and 5.30 there were 4 charity collector events where 2 men went to residential apartments in streets very close to her apartment. And certainly on one of those events at 4 pm there’s an e-fit that hte public can look at. A man with black hair.

Kirsty:                   Right

Redwood:           Erm that we really need to understand more about and identify who this person is."

Can anyone please double-check if I'm hearing this right?

Freudian slip?
Long time observer and poster on other forums but first post here.

Glad you picked this up because I heard him say it and my head spun round 360 like an owl.

Don't understand your point. If you're trying to imply that he has let slip that he thinks she disappeared in the afternoon, I think you're being a bit over interpretative. It's a perfectly normal use of language like if there's a football game in the evening you might say "on the morning of the game."

by Nereid 15.10.13 16:59

ShuBob wrote:Please can we stop with the name-calling e.g. Deadwood instead of Redwood? I don't see what he's done to warrant the sort of abuse he's getting. The same way folk get upset when Amaral is referred to as Amoral in certain quarters, Deadwood is unacceptable IMO.

Just my tuppence worth

I agree!

by Guest 15.10.13 17:04

Angelique wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:Yep. All focus is now on the Gerry-look-alike sighting at 10pm.

Maybe JT fessed up to being a liar and fantasist (on who's command?) and SY agreed (to try) not to make her look stupid.
With respect - but does this mean that SY have err,emm LIED ?

***
I'm running way behind again, so someone else may have reacted with:
In a criminal case there are two kinds of people who LIE
- the criminal
- the police

winkwink

by Guest 15.10.13 17:12

Nereid wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Please can we stop with the name-calling e.g. Deadwood instead of Redwood? I don't see what he's done to warrant the sort of abuse he's getting. The same way folk get upset when Amaral is referred to as Amoral in certain quarters, Deadwood is unacceptable IMO.

Just my tuppence worth
I agree!

Well said ShuBob clapping

by SixMillionQuid 15.10.13 17:15

endgame wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
Nereid wrote:Am working on transcript and this is what Redwood says at 30.42 live on the Crimewatch programme
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Redwood:           Yes, on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared between 3.30 and 5.30 there were 4 charity collector events where 2 men went to residential apartments in streets very close to her apartment. And certainly on one of those events at 4 pm there’s an e-fit that hte public can look at. A man with black hair.

Kirsty:                   Right

Redwood:           Erm that we really need to understand more about and identify who this person is."

Can anyone please double-check if I'm hearing this right?

Freudian slip?
Long time observer and poster on other forums but first post here.

Glad you picked this up because I heard him say it and my head spun round 360 like an owl.
Don't understand your point. If you're trying to imply that he has let slip that he thinks she disappeared in the afternoon, I think you're being a bit over interpretative. It's a perfectly normal use of language like if there's a football game in the evening you might say "on the morning of the game."

Nope, he would have said on the afternoon / evening of the day that she disappeared.

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

At 30:17 he refers to the days she went missing. At 30:46 he say "on the afternoon that Madeleine disappeared". How can you confuse a 10pm disappearance with the afternoon? That's like when the Tapas 7 accused Murat of being near apt 5A on the "night" of her disappearance.

by robbo 15.10.13 17:17

On a different point.... Has the engagement ring episode ever been mentioned before last night? And if not, why not?

by SixMillionQuid 15.10.13 17:18

robbo wrote:On a different point.... Has the engagement ring episode ever been mentioned before last night? And if not, why not?

Not that I'm aware of. I wonder if she mentioned it in her book.

by Rufus T 15.10.13 17:27

SixMillionQuid wrote:
robbo wrote:On a different point.... Has the engagement ring episode ever been mentioned before last night? And if not, why not?
Not that I'm aware of. I wonder if she mentioned it in her book.

It is indeed in the book.

by Woburn_exile 15.10.13 17:38

From Russiandoll
The police have said time and again they want info from holidaymakers and someone apart from Smiths might have seen the man and child.
Someone might place Gerry absent from table at a certain time.

Like a member of Ocean Club staff? I'm sure they will have access to it wherever it is broadcasted live.

shark

by PEANUT66 15.10.13 17:39

Firstly I would like to say a huge THANKYOU to all the posters and admin on this forum.

Without you, myself and countless others would be believing the likes of the crimewatch broadcast last night and the propaganda the press throw at us.

There was so much not said last night.

I truly hope Op Grange has a heart....This is all about a little angel ..... Madeleine Beth McCann

Please Mr. Redwood..........Do the right thing by her!

by ChuckieD 15.10.13 17:41

Woburn_exile wrote:From Russiandoll
The police have said time and again they want info from holidaymakers and someone apart from Smiths might have seen the man and child.
Someone might place Gerry absent from table at a certain time.

Like a member of Ocean Club staff? I'm sure they will have access to it wherever it is broadcasted live.

Only thing is though, the Smith sighting was at 10pm, the alarm was raised at 10pm. Gerry was there when the alarm was raised, was he not? Or is that only the Tapas mob saying that or am I wrong completely? (Sorry, there is so much info and I'm trying hard to keep up to speed after not keeping in the loop for a while)

ETA: Just read the staff statements where it appears to have started way before. God, think I need a good night's sleep!

by ProfessorPPlum 15.10.13 17:44

Apologies again - this might need to go somewhere else. Just saw this point in the comments on Pat Brown's site:

"kate talked not only about suicide, she talked about pressing a button so they would ALL be togeather, in other words contemplating killing the twins and gerry ( justifiable homicide) and herself.

Think about this though.

The key word here is ALL.

Given they have banged on about no evidence she has come to serious harm ( what is their definition of serious harm is daily rape and abuse isn't it)

All means everthing, her words only make sense if she knows Maddie is dead, it is the only way they can all be togeather, otherwise, she has murdered 2 children and gerry and herself and left Maddie an orphan"

That's an interesting observation. I wonder....

by Truthandjustice 15.10.13 17:46

The actor playing Smith man looked more like Gerry than the actor playing Gerry! Which makes me think Redwood must have thought about the possibility at least (fairly certain that a large number of CW calls would have named him). The good news is that loads of people are now searching 'Smith sighting' online and getting the original uncut version. The more it's out there the more likely the truth will reach critical mass and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

by Bobby Peru 15.10.13 18:02

NSY's reliance upon the revised timeline is misjudged. Witness time estimates are often flawed. For example, a 'sighting' estimated at 10pm when the time was nearer 9.30pm or 9.45pm would neither be uncommon or implausible. Unless the witness checked their watch at that point or had very recently checked the time, then their estimate is nothing more than retrospective guess work.

Furthermore, there is not a single shred of evidence to suggest an abduction. None of the alleged sightings are evidence. Had Madeleine been accurately identified with a known or unknown individual, then that would have been credible evidence.

CW certainly did nothing to present any substantive evidence, It was largely an exercise in poor vignettes of melodrama that was more notable for its omissions rather than its content.

by AndyB 15.10.13 18:06

tegan1973 wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Shrike wrote:Hi Tiny, I'm tending to think that Redwood needs more to secure a prosecution (as guided by CPS) exactly as Russiandoll has explained and hence his sortees to germany, netherlands and ireland, countries where most of the potential witnesses could be. IMO
A prosecution for what exactly? There doesn't appear to me to be any offence that is within the jurisdiction of either England and Wales or Scotland
That confuses me. If an offense is committed abroad, how can anyone be prosecuted here? Surely the police in the UK would have to ask Portugal to press charges.

There are some offences committed abroad that can be tried here such as murder and manslaughter but as SY have made clear that they believe that Madeleine is alive it can't be either of those so yes, you're right. Certainly any abduction or kidnapping would have to be prosecuted in Portugal by the Portuguese. So what was it that SY found in the review that made them upgrade it to an investigation? What charges do they think their investigation will result in? Or was it merely that, having failed to persuade the Portuguese to reopen the investigation for an alleged abduction, they decided to keep the whole abduction ball rolling by opening their own investigation, even though they know they can never prosecute.

by PeeWit 15.10.13 18:18

ChuckieD wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:From Russiandoll
The police have said time and again they want info from holidaymakers and someone apart from Smiths might have seen the man and child.
Someone might place Gerry absent from table at a certain time.

Like a member of Ocean Club staff? I'm sure they will have access to it wherever it is broadcasted live.

Only thing is though, the Smith sighting was at 10pm, the alarm was raised at 10pm. Gerry was there when the alarm was raised, was he not? Or is that only the Tapas mob saying that or am I wrong completely? (Sorry, there is so much info and I'm trying hard to keep up to speed after not keeping in the loop for a while)

ETA: Just read the staff statements where it appears to have started way before. God, think I need a good night's sleep!

Hi Chuckie,

IMO, I have always put a great deal behind the Smith sighting (feel very sorry for them now btw).

The only problem was the timeline, see link below. It gives a very much earlier timing of the “table clearance” and announcement that “a child is missing” (looks like shortly after GM’s check!)

This would give any suspect in that group plenty of time to walk to where the Smiths saw the man/child.

But the statement given by the OC receptionist has always thrown me.

Taken from the “files” it is (I think) the only mention of GM around that time:

“Receptionist Ocean Club H.J.S.L. was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 21:30 and 22:00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. He immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.”

“Shortly after this” is the key! Because closer inspection reveals that this is in total contradiction to a later statement:

“22:50 - First call to GNR Lagos precinct (Guarda Nacional Republicana, rural police); The first call to Police Precinct of GNR (Portuguese Rural Police) in Lagos, reporting a missing child and asking for Police help was made at 22:50 and a patrol was sent, arriving at Ocean Club 12/15 minutes later, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Costa Cabral, Head of Public Relations of GNR.”

So “shortly” could have been 50 or even 80 minutes, if say the “earlier” call had not been logged? As indeed it does not appear to have been.

IMO, it is highly likely that the receptionist simply “got it wrong”!

The GNR were not contacted until much later than the receptionist suggests the call was made! And if that is the case, another of GM’s alibis hits the dirt!!

This is the link to the “files” on the timeline (it is a large file but well worth a read when you have an hour or two!!) :

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

Certainly food for thought.

by Daisy 15.10.13 18:22

Bobby Peru wrote:NSY's reliance upon the revised timeline is misjudged. Witness time estimates are often flawed. For example, a 'sighting' estimated at 10pm when the time was nearer 9.30pm or 9.45pm would neither be uncommon or implausible. Unless the witness checked their watch at that point or had very recently checked the time, then their estimate is nothing more than retrospective guess work.

The Smith sighting at 10pm is said to be pretty solid because they had the receipt for the bar they'd just left with the time of 9.55 on it.

by Guest 15.10.13 18:26

Rufus T wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
robbo wrote:On a different point.... Has the engagement ring episode ever been mentioned before last night? And if not, why not?
Not that I'm aware of. I wonder if she mentioned it in her book.
It is indeed in the book.

Seeing it mentioned so emphatically I looked for it upon her fingers in CW

Not there

Given to little Maddie as a keepsake, at any given moment in time?

by Guest 15.10.13 18:33

Truthandjustice wrote:The actor playing Smith man looked more like Gerry than the actor playing Gerry! Which makes me think Redwood must have thought about the possibility at least (fairly certain that a large number of CW calls would have named him). The good news is that loads of people are now searching 'Smith sighting' online and getting the original uncut version. The more it's out there the more likely the truth will reach critical mass and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

Please look up: 'Oslo Confrontation'

When enough people identify Button-man as Gerry, having seen the Gerry lookalike on CW, ALL their witness statements are null and void in a court of law. If its presented to them as Gerry, and they ring up saying its Gerry, his lawyers will successfully argue the witnesses have been biased by the presentation on CW

So GM walks, even if he was involved in the disappearance of little Maddie McCann

Because of the close resemblance fielded by CW/BBC/AR/SY yesterday

by garyp 15.10.13 18:34

Just in case any new posters haven't read Goncalo Amarals book this is the relevant section
(copied from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

Summary from 'A Verdade Da Mentira' ('The Truth of the Lie' by Gonçalo Amaral) - Chapter's 8 & 21 - The sighting by the Smith family

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

Text: "Rua da Escola Primária, the location where the Smith family (black arrow) crosses paths with a man who was walking down the street (red arrow) carrying a child, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m." Photograph courtesy of Gonçalo Amaral, 'The Truth of the Lie'.

Chapter 8 - A man carrying a child on the way to the beach - pages 111-114

30 July 2008

Thanks to 'blackberry' for translation

- The Smith family, from Ireland, is in Luz for holidays, staying at their own holiday apartment; four adults and 5 children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland.

- approx 21h55, they are returning from "Kelly's Bar", heading north, all spread out along the street

- they pass a man walking down the middle of the street, carrying a child, with the head against his left shoulder and the arms hanging down alongside the body, in light colored or pink pyjamas, bare feet, pale skin typical of British and blond, shoulder-length hair; the girl is about 3-4 years old, about 1 meter tall.

- The man is not dressed like a tourist; he's wearing cream or beige trousers, classic cut, of linen or cotton. He is white, 30-35 yrs, 1.70-1.80 meters tall, average build, physically fit, short, brown hair, with a face that looks tanned.

- Images of Robert Murat begin to circulate around the world

- Back in Ireland, the Smiths watch the news and learn of Jane's statement and the suspicions falling upon Murat.

- The father contacts the Irish police. He tells his story. The man he saw was NOT Murat. He knows Murat and it was not him.

- The father is almost certain that the girl he saw was Madeleine.

- The Smiths are secretly brought back to Portugal. On Saturday, 26 May, in Portimão, Smith and his two children are interviewed.

- Their testimony is credible, but given the lack of light in the area, they can't identify the man who was carrying the child.

- The described the way he walked and carried her; this image is strongly fixed in their memory.

Chapter 21 - An Irish family in shock - pages 197-199

- Sept 2007, McCanns return to UK

- Gerry exits the plane, carrying his son against his left shoulder, the child's arms down along his sides, down the stairs and across the tarmack Gerry walks

- The Smith family see this recording on the news at 22h00 and are hit hard: they know this person, this way of carrying a child and of walking. It is Gerry McCann, they believe with a high degree of certainty, that they saw on 3 May at about 22h00, carrying a 4 yr old girl who appeared to be deeply asleep

- The father contacts the police to communicate this new information. He says he has not slept since 9 Sept and is very upset. It's as if he re-lived the night he saw the man carrying the child. Seeing Gerry walk and carry the child, awoke something in his head...

- Still not completely convinced, he watches the news again on ITV and also on Sky.

- No, there are no doubts. Gerry McCann looks just like the same person he saw carrying the child on May 3.

- Smith, upset and worried about what he saw and has concluded, needs the investigators to contact him.

by aiyoyo 15.10.13 18:36

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

Picture of British Father on this article well worth a look.

There are plenty holes in that story. See who can spot them?

by ChuckieD 15.10.13 18:37

PeeWit wrote:
ChuckieD wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:From Russiandoll
The police have said time and again they want info from holidaymakers and someone apart from Smiths might have seen the man and child.
Someone might place Gerry absent from table at a certain time.

Like a member of Ocean Club staff? I'm sure they will have access to it wherever it is broadcasted live.

Only thing is though, the Smith sighting was at 10pm, the alarm was raised at 10pm. Gerry was there when the alarm was raised, was he not? Or is that only the Tapas mob saying that or am I wrong completely? (Sorry, there is so much info and I'm trying hard to keep up to speed after not keeping in the loop for a while)

ETA: Just read the staff statements where it appears to have started way before. God, think I need a good night's sleep!
Hi Chuckie,

IMO, I have always put a great deal behind the Smith sighting (feel very sorry for them now btw).

The only problem was the timeline, see link below. It gives a very much earlier timing of the “table clearance” and announcement that “a child is missing” (looks like shortly after GM’s check!)

This would give any suspect in that group plenty of time to walk to where the Smiths saw the man/child.

But the statement given by the OC receptionist has always thrown me.

Taken from the “files” it is (I think) the only mention of GM around that time:

“Receptionist Ocean Club H.J.S.L. was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 21:30 and 22:00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared. He immediately contacted the GNR in Lagos, shortly after this the child's father and John Hill arrived at the reception and he phoned the GNR again.”

“Shortly after this” is the key! Because closer inspection reveals that this is in total contradiction to a later statement:

“22:50 - First call to GNR Lagos precinct (Guarda Nacional Republicana, rural police); The first call to Police Precinct of GNR (Portuguese Rural Police) in Lagos, reporting a missing child and asking for Police help was made at 22:50 and a patrol was sent, arriving at Ocean Club 12/15 minutes later, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Costa Cabral, Head of Public Relations of GNR.”

So “shortly” could have been 50 or even 80 minutes, if say the “earlier” call had not been logged? As indeed it does not appear to have been.

IMO, it is highly likely that the receptionist simply “got it wrong”!

The GNR were not contacted until much later than the receptionist suggests the call was made! And if that is the case, another of GM’s alibis hits the dirt!!

This is the link to the “files” on the timeline (it is a large file but well worth a read when you have an hour or two!!) :

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

Certainly food for thought.

Ah thanks PeeWit,

I refer to the files frequently as it's not fair to keep asking questions here when they're readily available in the files etc. It's so, so much info to absorb, especially as a layperson like moi who just wants to see justice served. Thanks for taking the time to point out where to look for the answer smilie

by aiyoyo 15.10.13 18:39

If Tanner's bundleman is eliminated and ruled out of the equation, what is the impact to the abduction theory? Anyone?

by Sceneset 15.10.13 18:46

Aiyoyo, thanks for the article re the mystery father.I do find it odd he had his daughter's pyjamas stored and ready to hand although i'm sure they wouldnt fit her anymore, six years on...and that he is still wearing clothes from so long ago. Odd that the pj's don't look 'frilly'. Tanner stated she saw a frill. Perhaps she imagined it in the orange light...

by ChuckieD 15.10.13 18:46

I'm hoping and it may be overly optimistic that they know who they want, they knew exactly what they were doing last night, they just need more people to give good and proper statements saying the same as they don't have enough to proceed with prosecution and conviction.

Unfortunately, I would bet that of the 1000 (?) calls that they've received are people calling with nothing else to say other than 'Well, duh!! It's Gerry' - which isn't helpful to anybody. Hopefully there are some very decent calls in there too.

by AndyB 15.10.13 18:51

ChuckieD wrote:I'm hoping and it may be overly optimistic that they know who they want, they knew exactly what they were doing last night, they just need more people to give good and proper statements saying the same as they don't have enough to proceed with prosecution and conviction.

Prosecution of what exactly? As I said a few posts ago, I can't see any offence for which the police in either England and Wales or Scotland have jurisdiction. If you can see one, please enlighten me