Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

by DIBarlow 15.10.13 13:40

tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?

I think it would have completely blown apart any chance of the MET or indeed the PJ bringing any charges against the McCanns. Given that Redwood has debunked JT's sighting and focused on the Smith sighting I fail to see how he can ignore the further factual evidence that is recorded in the Portuguese files.

So, not exactly the end of the world, more an end to any hope of justice for Maddie.

by endgame 15.10.13 13:42

tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.

I'm afraid I have to agree. Redwood does not have to make ridiculous unfounded statements about planned abductions. OK Andy you're convinced it's an abduction but you have have no idea how, when or who, no evidence and yet you're able to state that it has hallmarks. What are they? You mean any planned abduction would have the abductor wandering half way round Praia da Luz with his prey past two car parks where the co-conspirators could have easily parked the getaway car and heading off into nowhere. That is all you actually think you know. I don't see how those are hallmarks of anything.

As I say he doesn't have to trot out this c**p. It's only purpose is to reinforce the idea of abduction.

How is expanding the window of opportunity, pointing the finger at a suspect and claiming that everything adds up to a planned abduction "breaking the theory"? Removing Jane Tanner may make her look stupid but it opens up the possibilities of abduction rather than closes them down. He has in one move taken away the it couldn't have happened because there were only 1m 20 secs free argument.

by Guest 15.10.13 13:45

tiredofthebs wrote:
margaret wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
The papers would have gone to town with stories and probably accusations rendering any future trail useless.

Until the 'fat lady sings' and SY give us their conclusion, l will continue to have hope!
SY have been working on this for over 2 years. I managed to spot the McCanns were involved the day after Maddie disappeared.

They don't seem to be in any hurry to reach this conclusion.

The apparent lack of urgency indicates to me that they are not trying hunting for a live findable little girl.

It's also taking an awfully long time for a whitewash.

What you know to your own satisfaction is irrelevant - it's what you can prove in a courtroom beyond all reasonable doubt that matters. Investigations can and do take years if they are done properly.

I'm still on Team Hopeful smilie

by bobbin 15.10.13 13:47

tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.

I understand the tone of your post.
True, it did not break the abduction theory.
It did something far more significant.
It has rid the investigation of the only obstacle, i.e. that of the parents' continued claim of 'stranger' abduction.
It has now placed the Smith sighting as the 'abduction' scene, which on two counts shows:-
1. Martin Smith is 60 - 80 % sure it was Gerry McCann carrying a child.
2. That the buttoned trousers witnessed in the street scene were found, as if thrown down in a rush, on Gerry McCann's bed, and in subsequent photographs of Gerry McCann.
This shift of focus now implicates, not a 'stranger' abduction, but a 'parental' abduction which is then in line with Gonçalo Amaral's book, that the parent(s) were possibly involved in concealing evidence.
Now, given that Gerry McCann has consistently shown himself to be narcissistic and throughout, blaming others for everything, never taking the wrap or responsibility for things himself, I think he will be just as willing to take his 'protectors' down and not take the wrap on their behalf.
Interesting times ahead ...methinks.

by garfy 15.10.13 13:51

any one know if this is correct

Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ inspector and author of the book 'Maddie - The Truth of the Lie', says the new facts in the case are "publicity stunt" the parents of the missing girl.

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

by pennylane 15.10.13 13:51

tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?

It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).

by DIBarlow 15.10.13 13:58

pennylane wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).

OK, we can all be wrong of course.

But to try and steer through the middle of this how do you think 'Pros' would have taken the salient points that seem to be upsetting the 'Antis'?

So Redwood stated that they still believe it could have been an abduction, and that the parents had been cleared by the PJ.

Couple this with the fact that he blew JT's sighting out of the water and brought the Smith family sightings into play.

Knowing what else is in the PJ files do we think that the 'Pros' are feeling better, or worse, after CW?

by Angelique 15.10.13 14:01

garfy wrote:any one know if this is correct

Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ inspector and author of the book 'Maddie - The Truth of the Lie', says the new facts in the case are "publicity stunt" the parents of the missing girl.

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

garfy

Do you know if there is an English translation of this interview with Goncalo Amaral ?

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 14:02

DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
I think it would have completely blown apart any chance of the MET or indeed the PJ bringing any charges against the McCanns. Given that Redwood has debunked JT's sighting and focused on the Smith sighting I fail to see how he can ignore the further factual evidence that is recorded in the Portuguese files.

So, not exactly the end of the world, more an end to any hope of justice for Maddie.

They will continue to ignore the factual evidence in the same way that they have for 6 years. The police are not on our side. They are there to protect the McCanns, under orders from Brown and now Cameron. A belief in anything else is naive in the extreme.

The sad fact is that there will now never be enough evidence to convict the McCanns. Only a confession would do it and they won't get one of those.

IMO, the closest we will ever get to justice is the police and media openly saying that there was no abduction but not enough evidence to charge the McCanns.

by Nereid 15.10.13 14:03

I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 14:08

DIBarlow wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).
OK, we can all be wrong of course.

But to try and steer through the middle of this how do you think 'Pros' would have taken the salient points that seem to be upsetting the 'Antis'?

So Redwood stated that they still believe it could have been an abduction, and that the parents had been cleared by the PJ.

Couple this with the fact that he blew JT's sighting out of the water and brought the Smith family sightings into play.

Knowing what else is in the PJ files do we think that the 'Pros' are feeling better, or worse, after CW?

He did not blow her sighting out of the water! Think about what he did....he totally absolved her of any lying. He made up a person to cover for her lie!

Tanner now has no chance of ever being called a liar in any official report or investigation.

by tasprin 15.10.13 14:19

pennylane wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).

Yes it's quite unbelievable. The Met say they don't want a media frenzy, or more speculation, but they've done everything possible to ensure that that is exactly what happens - another circus with more speculation. They continually bombard the public with this case and know people will discuss it - unless of course they expect the public to suck up what they say like obedient zombies. Before CW aired Gerry McCann said 'This will go global'. They all knew exactly what they were doing. It's back to 2007, when confusion was good. Why all the PR? Why don't they just get on with the investigation - if there is one?

by bobbin 15.10.13 14:24

tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).
OK, we can all be wrong of course.

But to try and steer through the middle of this how do you think 'Pros' would have taken the salient points that seem to be upsetting the 'Antis'?

So Redwood stated that they still believe it could have been an abduction, and that the parents had been cleared by the PJ.

Couple this with the fact that he blew JT's sighting out of the water and brought the Smith family sightings into play.

Knowing what else is in the PJ files do we think that the 'Pros' are feeling better, or worse, after CW?
He did not blow her sighting out of the water! Think about what he did....he totally absolved her of any lying. He made up a person to cover for her lie!

Tanner now has no chance of ever being called a liar in any official report or investigation.

Whether you're concerned about Jane Tanner being considered a liar or not, has little bearing on the solving of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
AR has blown the 'stranger' abduction out of the water.
This now permits focus onto the Smith sighting, and opens the whole arena up to consider the sniffer dog findings, Madeleine McCann's blood in the apartment, the lack of forensic evidence of a child having been present in 5A, her clothes/toothbrush not being available, the photo-shopped photos, the speed of setting up the fund, the lack of transparency of expenditure, the libel basis of court cases against Tony Bennett, Gonçalo Amaral, etc. etc. etc.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 14:28

bobbin wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).
OK, we can all be wrong of course.

But to try and steer through the middle of this how do you think 'Pros' would have taken the salient points that seem to be upsetting the 'Antis'?

So Redwood stated that they still believe it could have been an abduction, and that the parents had been cleared by the PJ.

Couple this with the fact that he blew JT's sighting out of the water and brought the Smith family sightings into play.

Knowing what else is in the PJ files do we think that the 'Pros' are feeling better, or worse, after CW?
He did not blow her sighting out of the water! Think about what he did....he totally absolved her of any lying. He made up a person to cover for her lie!

Tanner now has no chance of ever being called a liar in any official report or investigation.
Whether you're concerned about Jane Tanner being considered a liar or not, has little bearing on the solving of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
AR has blown the 'stranger' abduction out of the water.
This now permits focus onto the Smith sighting, and opens the whole arena up to consider the sniffer dog findings, Madeleine McCann's blood in the apartment, the lack of forensic evidence of a child having been present in 5A, her clothes/toothbrush not being available, the photo-shopped photos, the speed of setting up the fund, the lack of transparency of expenditure, the libel basis of court cases against Tony Bennett, Gonçalo Amaral, etc. etc. etc.

Are you serious? Redwood clearly said that this had all the hallmarks of an organised abduction.

Tanner being called a liar or not is absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to this case. If Tanner is a liar then the Tapas crew are covering something up. If she isn't (and Redwood has now made sure she isn't) then the stranger abduction theory is absolutely back on.

By confirming Tanner's sighting, Redwood has just completely absolved the Tapas 9 of any skullduggery and placed the emphasis back on swarthy abductors.

by bobbin 15.10.13 14:38

tiredofthebs wrote:
bobbin wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
pennylane wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:
DIBarlow wrote:
tiredofthebs wrote:I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory". The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.
Playing Devil's Advocate here...

What do you think would have happened IF the MET had announced that it had completely debunked the abductor theory, and that the parents had not actually been cleared by the PJ?
I don't know. What do you think would have happened? Would the world have ended or something?
It seems to me that the professional thing to do would be for Andy Redwood NOT to keep plugging a theory. If they don't want to start a media frenzy, don't say whether the parents were cleared or not! Instead they keep feeding the public a heap of misinformation and are constantly stroking the gruesome twosome's egos. It's sick! Operation Grange are busy rewriting history (imo).
OK, we can all be wrong of course.

But to try and steer through the middle of this how do you think 'Pros' would have taken the salient points that seem to be upsetting the 'Antis'?

So Redwood stated that they still believe it could have been an abduction, and that the parents had been cleared by the PJ.

Couple this with the fact that he blew JT's sighting out of the water and brought the Smith family sightings into play.

Knowing what else is in the PJ files do we think that the 'Pros' are feeling better, or worse, after CW?
He did not blow her sighting out of the water! Think about what he did....he totally absolved her of any lying. He made up a person to cover for her lie!

Tanner now has no chance of ever being called a liar in any official report or investigation.
Whether you're concerned about Jane Tanner being considered a liar or not, has little bearing on the solving of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
AR has blown the 'stranger' abduction out of the water.
This now permits focus onto the Smith sighting, and opens the whole arena up to consider the sniffer dog findings, Madeleine McCann's blood in the apartment, the lack of forensic evidence of a child having been present in 5A, her clothes/toothbrush not being available, the photo-shopped photos, the speed of setting up the fund, the lack of transparency of expenditure, the libel basis of court cases against Tony Bennett, Gonçalo Amaral, etc. etc. etc.
Are you serious? Redwood clearly said that this had all the hallmarks of an organised abduction.

Tanner being called a liar or not is absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to this case. If Tanner is a liar then the Tapas crew are covering something up. If she isn't (and Redwood has now made sure she isn't) then the stranger abduction theory is absolutely back on.

By confirming Tanner's sighting, Redwood has just completely absolved the Tapas 9 of any skullduggery and placed the emphasis back on swarthy abductors.

For which there is no forensic evidence of 'entry' 'presence in apartment' 'exit' etc. This does not absolve the Tapas 7 and parents at all of 'involvement' in skullduggery, it puts the focus onto the possibility of Gerry McCann carrying a child, for whatever reason, and the rest of the bunch giving completely 'inconsistent' and 'contradicting' statements to follow.
They are all well impugned as ever, just the area for investigation is no longer hampered by a locked focus on the 'Tanner' abductor.
Furthermore, if the police know that they have made this 'innocent man carrying child' thing up, they will know that Tanner is lying and will call her out when they have got the rest of the case sorted.

by DIBarlow 15.10.13 14:50

'All the hallmarks of a stranger abduction'

Therefore if someone were thinking of staging an abduction this would be the blueprint to follow?

by bobbin 15.10.13 14:56

DIBarlow wrote:'All the hallmarks of a stranger abduction'

Therefore if someone were thinking of staging an abduction this would be the blueprint to follow?

Ahhh, yes, very good observation. Hallmarks as in 'apparence, feigning, pretending'. He's careful with his words, is Andy Redwood.

by tiredofthebs 15.10.13 15:18

I really want to believe that Redwood is trying to nail the McCanns but I can't see it. Especially when you consider that Gordon Brown managed to effectively shut down an entire foreign police investigation.

If Redwood gets anywhere near the truth he will be whoosh-clunked off the case, just like Lennie Harper was at HDLG.

by petesdog 15.10.13 16:27

Re: Hallmarks

If you watch CW (on Iplayer) at 26:03, in context of how important these men were.. Readwood states "the Madeleine McCann case does have, on ONE reading of the evidence all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction" (emphasis on the ONE)

The tone and emphasis makes me think that what he means is "well yes I suppose it does have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction, thats one way of looking at it"

Watching it illustrates what I mean, better than I'm describing it.

by galena 15.10.13 16:33

petesdog wrote:Re: Hallmarks

If you watch CW (on Iplayer) at 26:03, in context of how important these men were.. Readwood states "the Madeleine McCann case does have, on ONE reading of the evidence all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction" (emphasis on the ONE)

The tone and emphasis makes me think that what he means is "well yes I suppose it does have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction, thats one way of looking at it"

Watching it illustrates what I mean, better than I'm describing it.

I think he is doing as a good policeman should - presenting the evidence, seeing where it goes. Obviously he is aware abduction is one possibility but - considering the case as a whole - parental involvement is more likely. Gerry was the last person to see Madeleine alive, the parents haven't been exactly co-operative with the police, got lawyered up remarkably quickly - that has got to raise some red flags. I think we need to remember that while many of us have solved the case many times over to our satisfaction in the real world the police need evidence, witnesses etc, they can't just print off a thread from the internet and use that as evidence smilie

by Ollie1 15.10.13 16:49

Det. Redwood is clever IMO. I have rarely watched CW but when I have seen reconstructions on it they reenact the crime eg people violently robbed while at home, they reenact them being threatened, tied up etc. There was nothing last night showing the abductor entering the apartment either through the open window (didn't even show anyone attempting to furtively open the shutterheir or the unlocked patio door. Det Redwood knows exactly what he is doing.

by Mirage 15.10.13 16:54

Hi. I had posted this on the other thread but I read through your interesting comments and thought I would re-post here.

I understand the concept of stripping back and eliminating so that what you are left with must be the truth.
What I don't understand is adding pieces of misinformation, such as the McCanns were "cleared" and using the abduction word.

As we saw in TB's case, Lord Justice Tugendhat took a dim view of a barrister using the "abduction" word in his courtroom and asked what evidence she had to support this claim. The barrister was only able to reply that her clients had told her it was an abduction; a response which was not well received in a court of law. And neither should it have been acceptable on Crimewatch where we were urged, first by Kirsty Young to "cast your preconceptions aside" - followed by AR who also wanted "speculation" cast aside.

Within the court of Lord Justice Tughendhat, the misuse of the word abduction fell precisely into the pre-conception/speculation category that was unacceptable under law. It should be no different for AR who claims he is seeking to rewind time to point zero for a fresh understanding of events. If you want facts from the public, you are duty bound NOT to be hanging labels like this on the case before you start.

by Daisy 15.10.13 16:56

russiandoll wrote: iirc the media claimed the tennis court the last photo, the police did not mention any photos at all? will re watch CW later

I've just watched it again RD & during the clip by the poolside KM definitely says the pool photo was the last photo. So all the crap reported in the media last week about the tennis ball pic being the last one were well, just that - crap!

by Hicks 15.10.13 17:19

margaret wrote:
russiandoll wrote:will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.
I agree, the alarm had been raised by then and the tapas men were out searching.

It's a fact the Smiths sighting HAS to be ruled out, if that man doesn't come forward then SY have their answer.....

Not only did SY manage to find Tanners made up bundleman but Gerry had to go on primetime TV and ask for help to trace a man he knows the Smiths identified as HIM.

Interesting!

I still maintain if this was going to be a whitewash it would have not got to this stage. But this week SY have rubbished the timelines, told us the last photo was a lie, mentioned they are looking into all mobile activity so l think this is going in the right direction.

Exactly margaret! AR said in last nights appeal ( regarding the man walking towards the beach with the child)" if this was you please have the courage to come forward".I can't remember the exact words after but along the lines of,' we need to eliminate this man if innocent'. The Smith sighting is the ONLY bit of evidence that -potentially- makes a direct connection to the McCann's and foul play.
It must be the hope of SY that someone will come forward who saw the man after the Smiths and can say in all certainty who that man was.

by garfy 15.10.13 17:32

Angelique wrote:
garfy wrote:any one know if this is correct

Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ inspector and author of the book 'Maddie - The Truth of the Lie', says the new facts in the case are "publicity stunt" the parents of the missing girl.

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

Do you know if there is an English translation of this interview with Goncalo Amaral ?

sorry Angeliqe......... thought i posted this erlier

no i was hoping someone could translate it or speak portugese...below is all i could translate

DESCRIPTION - Gonçalo Amaral, former-overseer of the PJ and author of the book “Maddie - the Truth of the Lie”, says that the new facts in the case are “maneuver advertising executive” of the parents of the disappeared girl.

by Guest 15.10.13 17:39

Re the Portuguese video, Ayniia has replied to say that she will provide a transcript as soon as possible.

by petunia 15.10.13 20:09

petesdog wrote:I don't often post on here, but read the forum daily and have followed the case for a number of years. Obviously like most people I was hoping for a lot more from CW last night.
Immediately afterwards I was furious but feel more optimistic having had chance to re-watch and digest.

If we look at the possible scenarios we have
1) SY are being a bit thick and can't piece together the evidence to its obvious conclusion. This cannot be the case.
2) Its a whitewash. This was my immediate reaction last night, however unlike other whitewashes that have gone before, this case has tens of thousands of official police files, in the public domain for all to read. Files which again point to an obvious conclusion. This cannot be the case. SURELY they can't be contemplating a cover up with all that information in the public domain? Could they?
3) It's not going to be a cover up and SY are genuinely looking for additional information that would secure a conviction. Personally I think this is the likely agenda.

Other random musings from CW :

It wasn't a reconstruction. They didn't even show the efit man in situ.

Readwoods language - dismissed JT sighting which means "we're allowed to let the clock run forward from 9.15pm" allowed? Surely as an investigator you would consider all possibilities? 'allowed' as in able to credibly challenge the accepted timeline? Whose timeline? Well, its only the McCanns that had stuck rigidly to that timeline. PJ didn't. (and public opinion doesn't dictate the direction of investigation). Followed by commentators "this was an enormous discovery for the team" - this assumes the investigating team genuinely believed the JT timeline. Which of course they couldn't have, given the info in the files. But the TV presenters were "just doing their job" nothing to be read into what they said.

When discussing the 'significance' of the two new images Readwood states "this could be the man who took Madeleine, but very importantly there could be an innocent explanation" (with added emphasis on the the "but very importantly") Why is an innocent explanation very important. If you re-watch this part approx 23 mins in, it's almost like Readwood wants an innocent explanation found. Not sure why.

The blond haired men, charity collectors was, I felt, all a bit rushed - almost glossed over. Almost like they didn't believe they were of significance.

At 26:03, in context of how important these men were RW "the Madeleine McCann case DOES have, on ONE reading of the evidence have all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction" Again emphasis on the ONE, almost implying there is and they are considering other scenarios, although doesn't seem overly convinced of the burgalry scenario which he then goes onto to talk about.

At 30:01 in discussing the blond men with Kirsty "There were a number of incidents on either.." (stops himself) and corrects to say "on the day Madeleine went missing and the days leading up to ..." Either? Either days? Is he thinking of two specific days?

Gerry on the sofa "I think we're feeling hopefully and optimistic" - Think? Usual Gerry language tying himself in knots.

Kate "as long as we get the result that we need" and ends with "unlocking the case" (keys?)

It's a language analysts dream come true

good post petesdog.first thing i thought was whitewash but the more i think about it SY are been has crafty as the mccanns imo.

by Hicks 15.10.13 21:05

Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!

Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view. These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

by bobbin 15.10.13 21:13

Hicks wrote:
Nereid wrote:I'm starting to have some faith in Scotland Yard.

All the blonde men, charity workers, burglaries are all fluff in my opinion. The JT sighting has been rubbished, but we all knew that it was never credible anyway.

I think Crimewatch was all about the Smith sighting!
Nereid, SY re-interviewed a couple in February that are key witnesses. They were staying in the same block and had the best view. These were the witnesses who saw the middle aged couple go into the McCann's apartment on 2nd May when PF heard M crying for over an hour. The female witness was on her balcony at 9.15 with a whisky, she insists that she did not see JT. GM or JW in the road at all, she said that she would have remembered. That sighting by JT never happened.SY know that.

Didn't Pamela Fenn hear the crying on the 1st May? I may be wrong here but thought that.

by Guest 15.10.13 21:14

Hicks wrote:
margaret wrote:
russiandoll wrote:will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.
I agree, the alarm had been raised by then and the tapas men were out searching.

It's a fact the Smiths sighting HAS to be ruled out, if that man doesn't come forward then SY have their answer.....

Not only did SY manage to find Tanners made up bundleman but Gerry had to go on primetime TV and ask for help to trace a man he knows the Smiths identified as HIM.

Interesting!

I still maintain if this was going to be a whitewash it would have not got to this stage. But this week SY have rubbished the timelines, told us the last photo was a lie, mentioned they are looking into all mobile activity so l think this is going in the right direction.
Exactly margaret! AR said in last nights appeal ( regarding the man walking towards the beach with the child)" if this was you please have the courage to come forward".I can't remember the exact words after but along the lines of,' we need to eliminate this man if innocent'. The Smith sighting is the ONLY bit of evidence that -potentially- makes a direct connection to the McCann's and foul play.
It must be the hope of SY that someone will come forward who saw the man after the Smiths and can say in all certainty who that man was.

Or sent him on his way before the Smiths sighting

Latest topics