The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Some musings on the programme.

Post new topic   Reply to topic

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Some musings on the programme.

Post by PeterMac on 15.10.13 15:14

Musing on the experience I am left with some strange thoughts

We saw on the trailers all sorts of things, an invented tennis match, hints that the last photo was going to be the tennis balls, everyone sitting down at dinner facing the wrong way, Madeleine tucked up in bed, Kate and Gerry carefully closing the patio door with the curtains SHUT - thus further denying their possibility of seeing anything  . . . and so on.   We were holding ourselves in readiness be shoot down each of those as they came up.

BUT
in the programme itself NONE of the above were shown
They had all been ”whooshed”.
Why ?
Did they read the e-mails and letters we all sent them last week ?
It seems inconceivable that at least one was not sent to their legal department for advice, and the advice may well have been
scrub the following scenes - or you are going to regret it.

So we were left with anodyne drivel, and the revelation that Tanner was wrong.  
The revelation that the only piece of “evidence” on which they have relied to prove Abduction is not only simply NOT CREDIBLE, which it never was anyway, but has now been proved to have been someone else.  

Therefore by extension Kate and Gerry are wrong, and have been for the last 6 years.
And therefore by extension their present and previous libel actions and their protestations and accusations against anyone who refused to believe their every word are based on false premises.  

We are left with
Madeleine not in bed.
And that is IT.
The entire story is boiled down to one simple statement
At 10pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann reported that Madeleine was not in bed.

We were cruelly denied the opportunity to see the programme makers’ attempts to show Shutters, curtains, doors, entry, sedation, exit and the rest of the scenario.
They simply ducked that, and the reason is surely obvious.

They can’t show an abduction, because they can’t reconstruct an abduction. And they can’t reconstruct an abduction because there is still no way that they can make the evidence  and the time support one.

Moving it from 9:15 to 9:55 doesn’t actually change very much.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by chillyheat on 15.10.13 15:16

@PeterMac wrote:Musing on the experience I am left with some strange thoughts

We saw on the trailers all sorts of things, an invented tennis match, hints that the last photo was going to be the tennis balls, everyone sitting down at dinner facing the wrong way, Madeleine tucked up in bed, Kate and Gerry carefully closing the patio door with the curtains SHUT - thus further denying their possibility of seeing anything  . . . and so on.   We were holding ourselves in readiness be shoot down each of those as they came up.

BUT
in the programme itself NONE of the above were shown
They had all been ”whooshed”.
Why ?
Did they read the e-mails and letters we all sent them last week ?
It seems inconceivable that at least one was not sent to their legal department for advice, and the advice may well have been
scrub the following scenes - or you are going to regret it.

So we were left with anodyne drivel, and the revelation that Tanner was wrong.  
The revelation that the only piece of “evidence” on which they have relied to prove Abduction is not only simply NOT CREDIBLE, which it never was anyway, but has now been proved to have been someone else.  

Therefore by extension Kate and Gerry are wrong, and have been for the last 6 years.
And therefore by extension their present and previous libel actions and their protestations and accusations against anyone who refused to believe their every word are based on false premises.  

We are left with
Madeleine not in bed.
And that is IT.
The entire story is boiled down to one simple statement
At 10pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann reported that Madeleine was not in bed.

We were cruelly denied the opportunity to see the programme makers’ attempts to show Shutters, curtains, doors, entry, sedation, exit and the rest of the scenario.
They simply ducked that, and the reason is surely obvious.

They can’t show an abduction, because they can’t reconstruct an abduction. And they can’t reconstruct an abduction because there is still no way that they can make the evidence  and the time support one.

Moving it from 9:15 to 9:55 doesn’t actually change very much.
Innocent parents would be asking the same questions....I believe the reconstruction was so messed up in the hope that the McCanns should be challenging it if they are so innocent.

chillyheat

Posts : 814
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by jowie on 15.10.13 15:23

You may well have a point there PeterM. I would assume that many people, me included, followed your lead and wrote letters to the BBC.  We never, ever, get replies so we never know if our point has been accepted. However, there was so much missing in last night's programme, I tend to agree that the BBC may have been erring on the side of caution and edited the reconstruction - especially with the content of your amazing letter.

jowie

Posts : 58
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by ultimaThule on 15.10.13 15:37

Au contraire.  IMO it wasn't necessary to rehash or reconstruct a blow by blow account of the hours leading to Madeleine's disappearance when the crucial issue is, and always has been, to establish what evidence is available to support their contention that their daughter was abducted.

I've taken the liberty of copying your assement (below) of the what, prior to last night, was the all important timeline togther with my responses posted today:



PeterMac
There has been much talk of an "altered timeline" being the key to this.

It is being put out that somehow the time between 8:30 and 9:55 is available.  An hour and 25 minutes

Let us therefore briefly re-cap, by cutting it into chunks   All times approximate

8:30 McCanns leave apartment  -   8:45 all assembled in Tapas, and therefore all have passed the apartment
8:45 - 9:00    Window of opportunity
9:00      MO checks at windows
9:06 - 9:15   Gerry present either inside, or just outside
9:15 - 9:30   Window of opportunity (apart from JT coming back, of course )
9:30    MO checks, no sound, no SMELL.
9:30 - 9:50  Window of Opportunity
9:50     RO'B passes
9:50 - 9:55  Window of Opportunity
9:55    Balloon goes up.

Two blocks of max 15 minutes, plus one of 20 minutes, and one of 5.

Let us watch with interest.
Following last night's Crimewatch edition, if we 'draw it back to zero':

1.  The last person to see Madeleine alive was Gerald Patrick McCann when he checked his children were sleeping at c9.05-9.15pm on Thursday 3 May 2007.

Due to the diligence of the McCanns' and others in their party checking on their children on that night:

2.  The only window of opportunity available for an abductor to enter the apartment and remove Madeleine from it is between 9.50-9.55pm when her mother returned to find the children's bedroom window and shutters open and her eldest daughter had been 'taken'.
                                                          _______________________

The McCanns were in the Crimewatch studio last night and spoke live to Kirsty Young after the 'reconstruction' was shown. 

As Madeleine's parents expressed themselves as being greatly encouraged by NSY's work and made their own appeal for information to aid the investigation, it would seem we can assume they were given advance sight of the 'reconstruction' and concur with it - as evidenced by their their intention to accompany DCI Redwood to Germany, Holland etc where the part of last night's edition of Crimewatch which was devoted to the search for Madeleine will be aired again.

As with any other serious crime investigation, it is incumbent on the police to look at all angles and eliminate those which have no bearing on the case.  Given the 'spate' of burglaries which occurred in Luz during the early part of 2007, 2 of which were reported as having occurred in the same apartment block as 5A the police will, as a matter of course, seek to eliminate any possibility that Madeleine may have 'disturbed a burglar' in order to leave no doubt should the person or persons who removed her from the apartment be held to account in a Court of Law.
avatar
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Sceptic on 15.10.13 16:09

@PeterMac wrote:Moving it from 9:15 to 9:55 doesn’t actually change very much.
It may if you combine with carpenters interview

21:15/21:30 Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine, Ocean Club guest S.C. and his wife 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".


Someone calling Madeleine Madeleine 9-15 - 9-30 ??????

Sceptic

Posts : 183
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2013-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by ultimaThule on 15.10.13 16:20

@Sceptic wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Moving it from 9:15 to 9:55 doesn’t actually change very much.
It may if you combine with carpenters interview

21:15/21:30 Between approximately a quarter past nine and half past nine, Ocean Club guest S.C. and his wife 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".


Someone calling Madeleine Madeleine 9-15 - 9-30 ??????
Precisely, Sceptic, and at the risk of overkill I'm throwing in another 2 of my earlier responses for good measure smilie 

FWIW, I don't whether to laugh or cry at the 'revelation' that it has taken the Met's finest more than 2 years to establish what the PJ established within little more than 2 weeks, if not 2 days

Re: TIMELINE to watch for in tonight's programme
  ultimaThule Today at 3:50 pm
ultimaThule wrote:That's how I'm reading it, candyfloss. 

It has now been established that there was a very narrow window of opportunity for a stranger to enter the apartment, remove Madeleine McCann, and make off with her either by car or on foot.

Given the revised timeline, the Smiths' sighting has greater relevance for the investigation which is now endeavouring to establish whether the man they saw carrying a child who resembled Madeleine was another holidaymaker or a resident of Luz taking his daughter home, or whether it is a sighting of the man who took Madeleine from her bed - hence the appeal for information from anyone who was in the area on the night in question.
 

Re: TIMELINE to watch for in tonight's programme
  ultimaThule Today at 5:04 am
After last night's deconstruction it seems to me the goose is almost ready to serve.

There is only one window of opportunity which opens after Matthew Oldfield checks 5A and notices nothing untoward c9.30pm and closes when KM makes her discovery c10pm.  

Except there's those pesky witness statements from managers, staff, other guests, and residents, none of whom have an axe to grind and all of which suggest something of a hue and cry had been raised on or before 9.30pm.

What better way to grab some unobserved me-time than purportedly going off campus, as it were, to search for a missing child who may already have been taken part way to the beach by another party?  

When those about you are running around like headless chickens, 20-30 minutes can be attributed to having a sudden urge to run hither and thither to places which are attractive to children, or which you may feel an equally urge to explore, while no-one is keeping count of who's doing what and where. 

Due to 'legal reasons', last night's edition of Crimewatch can only be accessed on iplayer up until c9pm tonight.

I sincerely hope someone has found it within themselves to do right by an innocent 3 year old.

NB. After yesterday's saturation coverage the press appear to be playing it low key today.
avatar
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by tedless on 15.10.13 16:21

I have been thinking today about what we were shown in the reconstruction. We were shown the friends having their meal and doing their checks. We were shown a man who imo resembled GM walking with a girl in pyjamas who resembled Madeleine. This man was walking towards the beach which we were then told was not an escape route. We were shown Kate talking us through the open window. We were shown that JT sighting can be discarded as irrelevant. So presumably SY are showing us what evidence they have = not a lot, as you say Peter Mac Madeleine not in her bed at 10pm.

tedless

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Len Port in the Algarve news

Post by PeterMac on 15.10.13 16:53

http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.com.es/2013/10/madeleine-mccann-so-whats-new.html#comment-form
Portugal Newswatch
Reflections on current affairs in Portugal by journalist and author Len Port.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Madeleine McCann: so what's new?
In the massive publicity campaign, viewers had been promised a ‘revelation’ but the only revelation during the BBC’s special Crimewatch programme on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was how slow Scotland Yard detectives seem to have been in getting up to speed on the case and how shallow the BBC was in its reporting.
Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said that in their investigation he and his team were going back to the very start of the case and “accepting nothing,” meaning taking a wholly fresh look at things. Yet not once during the programme did the police or the presenters consider anything other than the abduction theory for which there is no evidence except the say-so of the parents and their holidaying friends.
The Chief Inspector highlighted what he called “significant changes” to the timeline and “accepted version” of events. He explained that Scotland Yard had ruled out the sighting by Jane Tanner of a man carrying a child closely resembling Madeleine outside the McCann’s apartment at 9.15 that fateful evening. The man turned out to be another holidaymaker carrying his own child home from a crèche.
While the Jane Tanner sighting has been central to the widespread acceptance of the abduction theory up until now, those who dismiss the abduction claim rejected years ago the sighting as very unreliable.
Scotland Yard has now shifted its emphasis to the well-documented sighting by an Irish family near the centre of the village at 10pm. Praia da Luz visitors and residents have now been asked to cast their minds back to 3rd May 2007 to see if they can identify the person portrayed in two newly released e-fit images.
The images were produced five years ago and they show two significantly different versions of the same man who may be a kidnapper – or he may not. He may be another entirely innocent person with nothing whatsoever to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.
If this really was a well-planned abduction as is being suggested, would a kidnapper carry his victim in his arms a considerable distance through the centre of the village towards the beach with all the attendant risk of being spotted? The question was not asked on Crimewatch.
The so-called “reconstruction” performed by actors, supposedly of events shortly before the disappearance, was notable for what it glossed over or did not reconstruct at all.
Bearing in mind the respectful nature of the programme towards the parents, it was perhaps not surprising there was no attempt to explain, for example, evidence found by two British cadaver dogs, or the many unanswered questions and conflicting statements made to the Portuguese police.
What will have been most disturbing for many viewers familiar with the McCann saga was the absence of journalistic balance and lack of rigour shown by the British media in the pre-broadcast propaganda and in the programme itself.
The show presented nothing new. It has merely added to the media circus that has blighted this tragic case from the very beginning.
Scotland Yard has apparently been inundated with calls as a result of the programme. British tabloids are already reporting that “police may have made a major breakthrough in the hunt for Madeleine.” Wishful thinking might be closer to the truth.
Madeleine deserves better.
Posted by Len Port at 2:03 PM  

2 comments:
dewi lennardOctober 15, 2013 at 3:42 PM
What a breath of fresh air! I can only enhance this article by saying how sorry I am that the people of Praia da Luz and indeed of Portugal have been subjected to this dishonest farce by the UK police and media. We already knew the Yard was corrupt (the Daniel Morgan murder and their association with the NewsCorp press spring to mind), but DCI Redwood's performance as dummy to Kirsty Young the presenter, destroyed any remaining faith that SY can bring an expert eye to solve this case.
May I just refer to my own research here, which I have shared with Chief Investigator Monteiro at Diretorio do Norte, Porto. I'll be brief. Analysis of the telephone calls shows that the McCanns were starting the cover-up by 22.00 on 1 May, followed by Gerry's infamous 12 voicemails on 2nd. And the creche attendance records show that a guest called Naylor allowed GM to sign his own daughter plus another girl in, from as early as 29 April. No relationship Naylor/GM has ever been admitted or investigated. I believe the "other girl" whom GM claimed was Maddie, was in fact a little friend of the Naylors, called Madalene R...r

AnonymousOctober 15, 2013 at 4:04 PM
A balanced view of a biased programme, well done to you for being allowed to say what us in the UK are thinking, but apparently unable to say

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by ConcernedCitizen on 15.10.13 17:02


ConcernedCitizen

Posts : 15
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by ProfessorPPlum on 15.10.13 17:10

Speaking of complaints (Admin please move if needs be), here's the response I got from the Press Complaints Commision re. Lorraine Kelly's factually-challenged column. 

"Dear Professor

 
Thank you for contacting the Press Complaints Commission.
 
The concerns you have raised relate directly to the McCann family, the subject of the story. [No sh*t Sherlock] Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without their involvement or another individual associated with the case. [Or perhaps the Commission could just check the case files??] In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval [How ludicrous!]. In such circumstances, we would generally require a complaint from the McCann family or their representative, in order to take the matter forward. [Are they saying that the only objection we can make about press dishonesty is if we either are, or represent, the person about whom the press is being dishonest? And so long as there's no-one to object they can write anything without recourse to fact?]
 
If you believe, however, that there are exceptional public interest reasons for the Commission to proceed with an independent complaint under the circumstances [Yes, I would say so], we would be grateful to hear from you in the next seven days.[You will] 
 
Once we have heard from you, the Commission will be asked whether it wishes to take the complaint forward. If you would like to discuss your case before replying please do contact us.  If we hear no more from you we will close our file on the matter.
 
I would like to set out a number of points about our procedures, for your information.
 


  • Speed: The Commission has a commitment to deal with all complaints as quickly as possible. It expects both complainants and newspapers – and their representatives, legal or otherwise – to cooperate with that commitment. Any unreasonable delay on either side may be taken into account by the Commission.
 


  • Transparency: As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to see and comment upon what the other has to say. The Commission cannot take into account information to which both sides have not had an opportunity to comment.
 


  • Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation overseen by the PCC requires good faith on both sides.  In order for the PCC to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or newspaper/magazine, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation - most notably correspondence – without the consent of the other party.  Publication, without consent, may affect the PCC’s ability to continue to deal with a complaint or may be considered by the PCC when it reaches a decision as to whether the Code has been breached. Material provided by both complainants and publications during a PCC investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint being considered by the PCC. This will not generally prohibit a publication from publishing details of any ruling made by the Commission.
 


  • Commission rulings: It is possible that the Commission may find that your complaint does not amount to a breach of the Code, or that any remedial action taken or offered by the publication is sufficient under its terms.  If this is the case we will explain to you why the Commission took this decision.
 


  • Correspondence with the editor: We will usually send a copy of each letter of complaint to the editor even if the complaint does not raise a breach of the Code.  Similarly, any substantive decision made by the Commission under the terms of the Code will be sent to the editor.
 


  • Outside the Commission’s remit: The Commission is not able to deal with all complaints.  Some of the circumstances in which we may not be able to pursue a complaint are set out on our website.
 


  • Legal proceedings: The Commission cannot deal with any complaint which is the subject of legal or other associated proceedings. You should let us know immediately if you decide to take legal action in regard to the matter under complaint.
 


  • Data Protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided to the Commission for the purposes of dealing with your complaint.  You also consent to the publication of the Commission's decision in relation to the complaint, but may withdraw consent in writing.
 


  • Independent Reviewer: If, at the end of the process, you are dissatisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been handled, you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer who will investigate the matter and report any findings and recommendations to the Commission. Further details are included in the enclosed How to Complain booklet, or via the following link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html
 
If, at the end of the process, you are dissatisfied with the manner in which your complaint has been handled, you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer who will investigate the matter and report any findings and recommendations to the Commission. For further details please use the following link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html
 
A copy of the Code of Practice which all newspapers and magazines who subscribe adhere to, can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
 
Further information about the complaints process can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html#Procedure
 
Information about our service commitments to complainants can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/charter.html.  
 
Further information about the PCC can be found on our website www.pcc.org.uk .
 
Do not hesitate to contact us if you need further advice.  When you write to us, please quote our reference number on this email.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
Sent on behalf of
Simon Yip
Complaints Coordinator
avatar
ProfessorPPlum

Posts : 411
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-05-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by tigger on 15.10.13 17:37

AR is apparently in NL and tonight the crime watch effort is aired here. 

Yesterday evening a detective was  interviewed for news programme and stated that it was all pointless, he  mentioned the dogs and said she must be dead. 

I will check and transcribe it tomorrow.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 50
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Dr What on 15.10.13 17:44

We only have GM's word that he saw Maddie asleep in her bed at 9.05.GM could have been anywhere, doing anything at that time.After all, someone had to clean and tidy the apartment.Needs a fair amount of time to do that.The timeline presented by the T9 is worthless.Setting the scene there and devising a reasonable storyline takes time and probably takes some help.

Dr What

Posts : 247
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2012-10-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Truthandjustice on 15.10.13 18:00

@ultimaThule wrote:

Re: TIMELINE to watch for in tonight's programme
  ultimaThule Today at 5:04 am
After last night's deconstruction it seems to me the goose is almost ready to serve.

There is only one window of opportunity which opens after Matthew Oldfield checks 5A and notices nothing untoward c9.30pm and closes when KM makes her discovery c10pm.  

Except there's those pesky witness statements from managers, staff, other guests, and residents, none of whom have an axe to grind and all of which suggest something of a hue and cry had been raised on or before 9.30pm.

What better way to grab some unobserved me-time than purportedly going off campus, as it were, to search for a missing child who may already have been taken part way to the beach by another party?  


When those about you are running around like headless chickens, 20-30 minutes can be attributed to having a sudden urge to run hither and thither to places which are attractive to children, or which you may feel an equally urge to explore, while no-one is keeping count of who's doing what and where. 

Due to 'legal reasons', last night's edition of Crimewatch can only be accessed on iplayer up until c9pm tonight.

I sincerely hope someone has found it within themselves to do right by an innocent 3 year old.

NB. After yesterday's saturation coverage the press appear to be playing it low key today.
Yes, it struck me that a lot of the timings given by Tapas staff and other independent witnesses put the commotion much earlier. Your proposed theory about unobserved me-time makes complete sense.

Truthandjustice

Posts : 237
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

IF . . . You were an abductor, or IF you were trying to do something else

Post by PeterMac on 17.10.13 9:43

IF you were an abductor who had planned it all and taken notes and all the other stuff we are asked to believe
WOULD YOU NOT have a car parked right outside, instead of wandering about a holiday resort for 5 or more minutes being seen by anyone who cared to look ?

IF you were father of a deceased child whose body you were trying to hide
WOULD YOU NOT do it during the day, in a blue tennis bag, for example, then clean the apartment, wash pyjamas with tell tale stains, and generally tidy up before raising the 'false' alarm.
WOULD YOU leave all that to the last minute and hope that you could get back to the table in time to pretend that you had been watching football ?
WOULD YOU NOT make sure that your alibi was as tight as it could be, down to exact timings, other people seeing you, down to standing in the street talking to a bloke you had hardly ever met, in the cold, with your dinner going cold, talking about nothing in particular for as long as you could, to establish that you were there and not somewhere else ?

My bet is on Smithman being a proper father looking after a sleeping child in the approved manner.
And when he comes forward we are then left with ? ? ?

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 177
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by russiandoll on 17.10.13 10:01

The 2 comments are interesting, I follow Kiko on twitter.

 He and Pat Brown are hoping this is a flushing out exercise.

 Both though remain cynical in view of CW and think a cover up.

 I do not think  it likely that any father with child will come forward, so it will have to be

 a man wanting to be seen but not recognised so the sighting indicates a crime other than abduction

 or an abductor who has eluded and will continue to elude the poilice, he will not be caught and the child never found.

 so cover up or Smithman will be nailed.

 I still do not see why the elaborate steps for a cover up would have been taken, this could have and would have been buried long ago imho. by those powerful enough to be heavily implicated in this saga.

AR wants it put to bed [ forgive the expression in the circumstances].  I wonder what he will do.

 You going with cover up Peter M? You have changed your mind re the trap ?

 Unless I misunderstand the last lines of yours, you think SY might invent a man coming forward, being eliminated?

 Cant get my head around that, on top of Tanner sighting dismissed. We will end up discussing the case forever !

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Searcher on 17.10.13 10:07

Maybe the alleged "They've taken her" is one element that could lift it out of "sightings" entirely to another scene?

Searcher

Posts : 373
Reputation : 21
Join date : 2013-07-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by suzyjohnson on 17.10.13 10:25

Before the Crimewatch programme there was some speculation that the 'last photo' was going to turn out to be the tennis picture. I thought it is possible that another independent witness has either described the scene at the tennis courts, or that the police possess another photo of Madeleine at the tennis court taken by someone other than the McCanns (with Madeleine in the background of their own holiday photos) I have always thought that the clothing worn by the family on any 'last photo' could be very relevant because  they may still have been wearing the same outfits later on that evening.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1206
Reputation : 269
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.10.13 10:26

@PeterMac wrote:IF you were an abductor who had planned it all and taken notes and all the other stuff we are asked to believe
WOULD YOU NOT have a car parked right outside, instead of wandering about a holiday resort for 5 or more minutes being seen by anyone who cared to look ?

IF you were father of a deceased child whose body you were trying to hide
WOULD YOU NOT do it during the day, in a blue tennis bag, for example, then clean the apartment, wash pyjamas with tell tale stains, and generally tidy up before raising the 'false' alarm.
WOULD YOU leave all that to the last minute and hope that you could get back to the table in time to pretend that you had been watching football ?
WOULD YOU NOT make sure that your alibi was as tight as it could be, down to exact timings, other people seeing you, down to standing in the street talking to a bloke you had hardly ever met, in the cold, with your dinner going cold, talking about nothing in particular for as long as you could, to establish that you were there and not somewhere else ?

My bet is on Smithman being a proper father looking after a sleeping child in the approved manner.

And when he comes forward we are then left with ? ? ?
Fully agreed accept to add the following:

1. The walk from apartment G5A to where (allegedly) seen by the Smith family would be I think at least 7 minutes, maybe 9-10 - plus carrying a child weighing probably 2.5 to 3 stone (15-18kg) would slow you down

2. This would be the first time in recorded history so far as I am aware that a stranger abductor of a young child did not have a car ready and waiting - unless anyone can think of one

3. The very idea of Gerry McCann risking discovery by carrying a dead child through the streets of Praia da Luz at the very moment when the alarm is being sounded is laughable

4. There are reasons for doubting Martin Smith's statements (including his claim that he was '60% - 80% sure it was Gerry McCann he saw) and I am not persuaded that the Smith family saw anyone; if they did, it would be someone carrying a child home

5. If he was so sure it was Gerry McCann he saw, why the need for two wholly different e-fit pictures?

6. For Redwood to even suggest that this person (if real) could be the abductor shows how far off the scale of reality the SY 'investigation' has gone

7. Just as they 'found' a crecheman, so they will (if they want to) find a Smithman - and eliminate him. Probably in about 18 months' time.

8. Then we will hear some more stuff about some of the other 41 'persons of interest'.

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14940
Reputation : 3019
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Angelique on 17.10.13 11:06

@russiandoll wrote:

 Cant get my head around that, on top of Tanner sighting dismissed. We will end up discussing the case forever !
I agree with all these differing programmes, the discarding of Bundleman, Tannerman, whatever, I am just getting to the point of saturation now.

I think we will be here forever discussing it and maybe that's exactly what TM wanted, to be forever going round and round and still not getting to the actual Truth and all the while no action can be taken.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
avatar
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Cristobell on 17.10.13 11:07

Smithman hasn't come forward or been traced in 6.5 years, so I don't believe it was a genuine father carrying his child home. Tannerman is a different kettle of fish.  

The Smith family have kept a low profile, they have never sought publicity and they refused to co-operate with the McCanns' alternate investigation.  I think what we may be seeing, for the first time in this case, are witnesses with integrity.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by jeanmonroe on 17.10.13 11:12

Petermac:
WOULD YOU NOT have a car parked right outside, instead of wandering about a holiday resort for 5 or more minutes being seen by anyone who cared to look ?
______________________________________________________

We said THAT years ago!

The car would have been parked in the car park next to the small wall right outside apartment 5A.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5818
Reputation : 1665
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by Cerinthe on 17.10.13 11:26

@PeterMac wrote:

IF you were father of a deceased child whose body you were trying to hide
WOULD YOU NOT do it during the day, in a blue tennis bag, for example, then clean the apartment, wash pyjamas with tell tale stains, and generally tidy up before raising the 'false' alarm.
WOULD YOU leave all that to the last minute and hope that you could get back to the table in time to pretend that you had been watching football ?
WOULD YOU NOT make sure that your alibi was as tight as it could be, down to exact timings, other people seeing you, down to standing in the street talking to a bloke you had hardly ever met, in the cold, with your dinner going cold, talking about nothing in particular for as long as you could, to establish that you were there and not somewhere else ?
Wouldn't it depend on when the child died?  If it happened just before they were going out to dinner, he might have had some very tight timings to work with.  It would make sense then that he fitted his covering up activities into any available opportunities.   If they'd done anything differently that night, like not go to the Tapas bar then suspicion would have immediately be upon them.  As it is it's given them some kind of alibi.

Cerinthe

Posts : 67
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-09-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by ChippyM on 17.10.13 11:28

@PeterMac wrote:IF you were an abductor who had planned it all and taken notes and all the other stuff we are asked to believe
WOULD YOU NOT have a car parked right outside, instead of wandering about a holiday resort for 5 or more minutes being seen by anyone who cared to look ?

IF you were father of a deceased child whose body you were trying to hide
WOULD YOU NOT do it during the day, in a blue tennis bag, for example, then clean the apartment, wash pyjamas with tell tale stains, and generally tidy up before raising the 'false' alarm.
WOULD YOU leave all that to the last minute and hope that you could get back to the table in time to pretend that you had been watching football ?
WOULD YOU NOT make sure that your alibi was as tight as it could be, down to exact timings, other people seeing you, down to standing in the street talking to a bloke you had hardly ever met, in the cold, with your dinner going cold, talking about nothing in particular for as long as you could, to establish that you were there and not somewhere else ?

My bet is on Smithman being a proper father looking after a sleeping child in the approved manner.
And when he comes forward we are then left with ? ? ?
   Some things I have thought in relation to these types of question.

- Is it possible that something in a plan went wrong and MM had to be moved quickly, possibly from somewhere they had thought safe? To me this still doesn't explain why the person wouldn't use something like the blue bag to move a body in...unless the blue bag had been soiled or ruined in some way that would make it unsusable or too suspicious.

-  the man was seen heading towards the beach but that doesn't mean it was his final destination, what else is on the way to the beach, houses, carparks?  Again was this man heading in that direction risking being seen because he simply had to get somewhere by a certain time?

another possibility is some kind of bizarre 'decoy mission' but I don't really see that as likely.

ChippyM

Posts : 1334
Reputation : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by ChippyM on 17.10.13 11:30

Q
@Cerinthe wrote:Wouldn't it depend on when the child died?  If it happened just before they were going out to dinner, he might have had some very tight timings to work with.  It would make sense then that he fitted his covering up activities into any available opportunities.   If they'd done anything differently that night, like not go to the Tapas bar then suspicion would have immediately be upon them.  As it is it's given them some kind of alibi.
 A good point! The real mystery is the 'sleeping' child really sleeping and if not, when did it happen.

ChippyM

Posts : 1334
Reputation : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Some musings on the programme.

Post by plebgate on 17.10.13 11:37

IMO the solicitors for the BBC were consulted following PeterM's, Tony's and many others emails.  Also imo certain people were rattled about the number of complaints which might have been received about any inconsistencies and by the looks of things there would have been quite a few.   Portia and others had seen a few just from the trailer.

Sterlin job done imo. thumbup 

Internet warriors strike again. clapping clapping

plebgate

Posts : 6199
Reputation : 1852
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum