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

by pennylane 16.10.13 19:42

LastChancery wrote:Hi, new here from germany.

Aktenzeichen XY... ungelöst is on TV. They are currently showing other cases. I think the McCann stuff will be shown later.

sry for my bad english

Welcome LastChancery, your English is perfect! welcome2

by Pennypennypenny 16.10.13 19:46

I'm sure this question as been asked over and over again, but, if guilty why do TM keep putting themselves out there? Why not just slink away quietly?

by tiny 16.10.13 19:59

Pennypennypenny wrote:I'm sure this question as been asked over and over again, but, if guilty why do TM keep putting themselves out there? Why not just slink away quietly?

££$£$££$£,I think that when the pj files were released and got in the public domain they had no choice but to keep pushing the abduction,way back in 2007 when the story broke people were questioning them ,first that they left there children alone then with the files a lot more questions needed answers
so no the mccanns couldn't really hide as they needed to push the abduction.thats how I see it, if that makes any sense

by stillsloppingout 16.10.13 19:59

Pennypennypenny wrote:I'm sure this question as been asked over and over again, but, if guilty why do TM keep putting themselves out there? Why not just slink away quietly?

Hi Two reasons really .

Firstly; Hiding in plain sight , See Jimmy Saville . the best form of defence is attack . By the fact you have asked the question confirms the strategy .

Secondly . They have no choice now but to continue to do the rounds .
It is like a merry go round they can NEVER get off . the only way is a total whitewash , and Gerry gaining office in Parliament etc . even then there will always be that nagging doubt . because without a body , there can never be true closure .

by **sharonl** 16.10.13 20:05

stillsloppingout wrote:
Pennypennypenny wrote:I'm sure this question as been asked over and over again, but, if guilty why do TM keep putting themselves out there? Why not just slink away quietly?
Hi Two reasons really .

Firstly; Hiding in plain sight , See Jimmy Saville . the best form of defence is attack . By the fact you have asked the question confirms the strategy .

Secondly . They have no choice now but to continue to do the rounds .
It is like a merry go round they can NEVER get off . the only way is a total whitewash , and Gerry gaining office in Parliament etc . even then there will always be that nagging doubt . because without a body , there can never be true closure .

Not saying anything about the present case, you understand, but I recommend you watch this 3-minute video clip: 'Ian Huntley - 10 years on':

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

At the end of the clip, 2 mins 37 secs, an expert says this:

Sadly, offenders do like to talk to camera. It's been shown several times - and Huntley was no exception. He enjoyed doing that, and he got a kick out of doing that...

by Lance De Boils 16.10.13 20:20

Also, Lance Armstrong springs to mind. How long did he manage to keep up the lies, despite all the indications of guilt? Eventually he broke.

by Pennypennypenny 16.10.13 20:20

Thanks for the replies. I suppose it makes sense and they seem to have a massive compulsion to make the whole world believe them.

by LastChancery 16.10.13 20:25

they have about 50min left here on german tv and still nothing

by stillsloppingout 16.10.13 20:33

LastChancery wrote:they have about 50min left here on german tv and still nothing

I bet the background music is tinny !!! big grin

by pennylane 16.10.13 20:35

tiny wrote:
Pennypennypenny wrote:I'm sure this question as been asked over and over again, but, if guilty why do TM keep putting themselves out there? Why not just slink away quietly?
££$£$££$£,I think that when the pj files were released and got in the public domain they had no choice but to keep pushing the abduction,way back in 2007 when the story broke people were questioning them ,first that they left there children alone then with the files a lot more questions needed answers
so no the mccanns couldn't really hide as they needed to push the abduction.thats how I see it, if that makes any sense

Ditto, tiny!

They've made enormous gaffs in their version of events, and back fitting their story has added to them; then there's the fact that mommie dearest didn't answer 48 questions in spite of being told it could harm the search; and their refusal to return to Portugal to do the reconstruction (because it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny); and like a massive guilt sign hanging over their heads is the damaging blood and cadaver dog alerts. All this being discussed 24/7, along with the Smith sighting and Gaspar statements.

They hope, with a little help from their friends, that people would ignore all that and ask the precise question you have asked above, pennypennypenny.

Methinks they have protested way way too much.

jmho

by LastChancery 16.10.13 20:37

stillsloppingout wrote:
LastChancery wrote:they have about 50min left here on german tv and still nothing
I bet the background music is tinny !!!

that sums it up.

they are now startin, tellin the whole story and shit.

by Guest 16.10.13 20:37

Lars Pellinat ‏@Lars9596 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] For [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] starting NOW!!! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by intrigued89 16.10.13 20:43

Hi there,

New here. Have followed this case a bit, but was compelled to do some more digging after the farce that was the Crimewatch show the other night (unless those of you who think that Redwood has trapped them are indeed correct).

Something that interested me was this article: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does anyone know if Murat's villa is in the direction that the Smith witness was walking? Although I must admit I do struggle to believe that the child being carried was Maddie...

by Nereid 16.10.13 20:47

LastChancery wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
LastChancery wrote:they have about 50min left here on german tv and still nothing
I bet the background music is tinny !!!
that sums it up.

they are now startin, tellin the whole story and shit.

Wilkommen LastChancery! welcome

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

At about 1.13 in the video on the above link does Rudi Cerne say that the two suspects spoke German?

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

It looks like they use different actors in the reconstruction as well.

by LastChancery 16.10.13 20:49

i believe they said, that they where speaking german.

i dont know if this is the same as crimewatch, because i didnt see the original.

by **PeterMac** 16.10.13 20:52

intrigued89 wrote:Hi there, . . .
Does anyone know if Murat's villa is in the direction that the Smith witness was walking? Although I must admit I do struggle to believe that the child being carried was Maddie...

Murat's villa is in the direction that TANNER's man was walking. It is a long way from Smithman and in the other direction.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Murat's villa is UP the road from point A and slightly off the map

by Nereid 16.10.13 20:54

LastChancery wrote:i believe they said, that they where speaking german.

i dont know if this is the same as crimewatch, because i didnt see the original.

Thanks, just double checked and they're using different actors. Do you know if the German programme will be viewable online later?

by petunia 16.10.13 20:55

so did Kate go back to check or just listen.she said i stood in the living area [or something like that] and all was quite.and only went over to the door cos she thought matt left it open wider and she went to close it and it whooshed.why would you go all the way to the apartment to just to listen?? you may has well check seeing as you had taken the trouble to go in the first place

by LastChancery 16.10.13 20:58

Nereid wrote:
LastChancery wrote:i believe they said, that they where speaking german.

i dont know if this is the same as crimewatch, because i didnt see the original.
Thanks, just double checked and they're using different actors. Do you know if the German programme will be viewable online later?

possible that it will show up in the zdf mediathek in the link below

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

oh, they have the McCanns now live in the show, interviewed by Rudy Cern

by Guest 16.10.13 21:01

Interesting comments/tweets from Spudgun re journos.

by Karen Pinto 16.10.13 21:10

This one

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Number of notable Journalists that I have spoken to this week who feel the MET is playing a reeling in game with the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is heartening!

by bodiddly 16.10.13 21:16

Has this link been posted yet. Apologies if so. Very interesting ref The political help received by TM

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

Sorry edited to change spelling.

by SixMillionQuid 16.10.13 21:18

Karen Pinto wrote:This one

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Number of notable Journalists that I have spoken to this week who feel the MET is playing a reeling in game with the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is heartening!

If that's what they believe then they better hope GA wins his libel trial...the gloves will be off.

by LastChancery 16.10.13 21:19

more than 20 calls before the show.

more information in about 40min

by StraightThinking 16.10.13 21:27

NSY says that, by moving the abduction timeline back to after 21.15, it creates a bigger window of opportunity for an abductor to strike

I don't agree. In fact, it has made an abduction almost impossible

21.30 approx - MO and RO'B doing checks

21.40 approx - the balance of independent witnesses suggests that the Tapas table emptied around this time (except DW), ie this is when the alarm was raised, not 21.55 as widely assumed

NSY has the new abduction window as 21.15 - 22.00 but it can't have been later than 21.35-ish

So the opportunity is limited to the point of near impossibility

I believe there is a Tapas Bar receipt timed at about 22.00 (?), suggesting that the party went on until then, but the bill would presumably have been issued when DW finally left the table, rather than when the others were all dashing for the exit on the alarm being sounded

There is no significant opportunity for an abductor in that new timeline, despite what CW stated

by plebgate 16.10.13 21:29

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Karen Pinto wrote:This one

Mike Spudgun ‏@spudgun01 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Number of notable Journalists that I have spoken to this week who feel the MET is playing a reeling in game with the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is heartening!
If that's what they believe then they better hope GA wins his libel trial...the gloves will be off.

I still say he will win.

Even if a "snatcher" is arrested before 27th November there will still need to be a trial which would not happen for a while and a jury would need to find the person guilty, unless of course he fesses up.

I believe this trial is based on evidence which was available at the time and Tapas crew and Mr. & Mrs. definitely pushed bundleman as the main suspect. The police work was based on their written statements also.

What will this evidence that Mrs. has to bring to court in trial in Portugal which will prove that Mr. A's book was lies?

by plebgate 16.10.13 21:33

StraightThinking wrote:NSY says that, by moving the abduction timeline back to after 21.15, it creates a bigger window of opportunity for an abductor to strike

I don't agree. In fact, it has made an abduction almost impossible

21.30 approx - MO and RO'B doing checks

21.40 approx - the balance of independent witnesses suggests that the Tapas table emptied around this time (except DW), ie this is when the alarm was raised, not 21.55 as widely assumed

NSY has the new abduction window as 21.15 - 22.00 but it can't have been later than 21.35-ish

So the opportunity is limited to the point of near impossibility

I believe there is a Tapas Bar receipt timed at about 22.00 (?), suggesting that the party went on until then, but the bill would presumably have been issued when DW finally left the table, rather than when the others were all dashing for the exit on the alarm being sounded

There is no significant opportunity for an abductor in that new timeline, despite what CW stated

Good post

by nomendelta 16.10.13 21:33

Now let's get this right...

The Tanner sighting has always been regarded as dubious - numerous discrepancies in her account along with her remarkable ability to embellish details the more time had passed. Yet it's one that the McCanns leaped on and many artistic impressions have been done based on the sighting.

Now, SY have identified the "bundleman" to their satisfaction and not only was it not an abductor, the child wasn't Maddie but WAS about the same age and WAS wearing similar pyjamas.

Here is my quandary. Either it's all true and by some remarkable coincidence Tanner really DID see such a person - a person carrying a child of Maddie's rough age wearing clothes similar to Maddie at the same time that Maddie herself was being abducted and, apparently, walked by the bad man down to the beach...incredible stuff that would stretch the belief of even the most avid "Murder She Wrote" fan.

Furthermore, some have posited that Tanner made it up at the behest of the McCanns. Now, if this was the case...what exactly must be going through their heads right now?

by Nereid 16.10.13 21:51

LastChancery wrote:more than 20 calls before the show.

more information in about 40min

I can't get the live broadcast. Will try again tomorrow! Thank you.

by Prehensile 16.10.13 21:51

nomendelta wrote:Now let's get this right...

The Tanner sighting has always been regarded as dubious - numerous discrepancies in her account along with her remarkable ability to embellish details the more time had passed. Yet it's one that the McCanns leaped on and many artistic impressions have been done based on the sighting.

Now, SY have identified the "bundleman" to their satisfaction and not only was it not an abductor, the child wasn't Maddie but WAS about the same age and WAS wearing similar pyjamas.

Here is my quandary. Either it's all true and by some remarkable coincidence Tanner really DID see such a person - a person carrying a child of Maddie's rough age wearing clothes similar to Maddie at the same time that Maddie herself was being abducted and, apparently, walked by the bad man down to the beach...incredible stuff that would stretch the belief of even the most avid "Murder She Wrote" fan.

Furthermore, some have posited that Tanner made it up at the behest of the McCanns. Now, if this was the case...what exactly must be going through their heads right now?

I posted a similar question yesterday, inasmuch T9 must know they have been rumbled.