Re: CRIMEWATCH Update on MadeleineMcCann case tonight 19th March

by jeanmonroe 20.03.14 0:17

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

10th May 2009.

So Andy, TWO YEARS before Operation Grange was set up.

Not quite the 'revelation' you are trying to 'astound' us with NOW!

You're one sick puppy!

You'll need ALL the bin lorries around, to SY, to clear up all the sh*t , you and your 37 'mates' have, and continue to, come up with!

by Okeydokey 20.03.14 0:21

lj wrote:
Bellisa wrote:Sorry I didn't realise this was a new thread,I have been out all day.
Does this new info confirm that the mcs are home and dry?
What about the chief of police stating he had the names of suspects a few weeks back?

Now please stop those impertinent questions. Mr Andy had another revelation, don't ruin that with logic or proper thinking.

Yes, logic and joined up thinking are simply not needed in this sort of investigation! spin

by Mirage 20.03.14 0:22

ChippyM wrote:Are we being asked to believe that some of these attacks were not reported? What kind of parent finds a strange man breaking into their apartment and in kids room and just tells the holiday rep?

Weren't the McCanns and some of their chums regular visitors to the area in the years which these alleged incidents took place?

Now get it right. Get it right. Stinky man never broke in. The parents always left the doors unlocked and he strolled in. Sometimes he just wanted to sit on the beds. Sometimes his bestial side got the better of him. But he always exchanged a few words in English before he left.

These holiday makers always forgave him and never dobbed him in. And old Kate,in the best traditions of English holiday makers, forgave him too. I've always suspected old Kate caught a glimpse of Stinky Man but suffering from temporary double vision - the result of the evening's modest imbibing - was heard to call out "The fouking bastards have taken her".

Yes, tonight on CW, for the first time, we can reveal that Kate saw two stinky men when there was only one. And we blame the Portuguese for not picking up on this earlier.

by Guest 20.03.14 0:23

ha lj what was I thinking!
I would like to.agree with others that this is yet another attempt of elimination to build a watertight case against the real perpetrators but my hopes of Madeleine ever receiving justice have been annihilated today,so sorry she has been let down once more.

by lj 20.03.14 0:24

Shrike wrote:Just seen CW update 22.42 and there is absolutely nothing here as far as I can see. It's like the BBC and SY are having a big laugh. Not sure who the laugh is on - will we know soon? I just don't see any substance in this update, perhaps they are giving the forums something to talk about, distracting attention etc. But if they are supposed to be serious they do not seem to be hiding their true feelings about this case. AR and KY seem to be laughing behind their "serious" front.

Ah shrike a cedar waxwing??

by Silverspeed 20.03.14 0:27

Mirage wrote:
sallypelt wrote:What I am having difficulty with, is the time of morning these "assaults" took place. Sometime between "2 and 4 AM". Now what were the parents doing at this time? Most people are sleeping during these hours, and call me old-fashion, but I would make sure, if I was in a foreign land, with young children (or with no children) I would have made sure all doors and windows were locked. So, if the parents were sleeping, did the child scream when these assaults were taking place? I don't believe we've been told. If this is not the case, did the child/ren tell the parents in the morning? (Remember the "why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying" moment?). Surely, if this was the case, the sexually assaulted child/ren WOULD have let out a mighty scream, and brought the parents running?

Something smells to high heaven here. I just doesn't make sense.

I don't believe a word of it. The whole case has descended into black comedy. Poor poor Madeleine. What a shower she's been surrounded with in life and in death. Not one decent adult to speak up for a three year old child who has obviously met a terrible end. They'll all pay in the end,. There's always a price exacted.

Couldn't agree more. At least Amaral has stood up for her and continues to do so.

by Okeydokey 20.03.14 0:31

sallypelt wrote:What I am having difficulty with, is the time of morning these "assaults" took place. Sometime between "2 and 4 AM". Now what were the parents doing at this time? Most people are sleeping during these hours, and call me old-fashion, but I would make sure, if I was in a foreign land, with young children (or with no children) I would have made sure all doors and windows were locked. So, if the parents were sleeping, did the child scream when these assaults were taking place? I don't believe we've been told. If this is not the case, did the child/ren tell the parents in the morning? (Remember the "why didn't you come when me and Sean were crying" moment?). Surely, if this was the case, the sexually assaulted child/ren WOULD have let out a mighty scream, and brought the parents running?

Something smells to high heaven here. I just doesn't make sense.

I agree. Something smells. I do recall some stories that were publicised from a few years ago. When the details were examined they sounded more like criminals nipping into properties to steal clothes and so on, and parents being fearful for their children in such circumstances. It is very odd that no one went to the UK media with the details of one of these stories - they could easily have cleared tens of thousands of pounds.

by Okeydokey 20.03.14 0:39

Just took a look at the Redwood piece. Very odd. Twelve offences and not one irate parent tries to tackle the guy, detain him, knock his head off, lock him in a room...
Was there never a family in a villa with three well built men who could detain someone like that? Were no fingerprints ever taken? I find it difficult to believe the Portugese Police did absolutely nothing at all.

None of it seems to make any sense...

And another thought...why have the McCanns been so quiet about this. It was their detectives who originally put this together...on the face of it, it would seem a good, strong lead. So why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops about it? And why have the Police not made this their strongest lead? And why did Redwood issue no warning to Algarve holidaymakers this year to be on guard, to always lock and bolt windows and doors? Surely it is the height of irresponsibility for an officer in this situation, knowing all these offences have taken place not to issue such a warning.

by Mirage 20.03.14 0:42

lj wrote:
Doug D wrote:

Stoneyface starts smiling around 2.22 & then doesn't stop.

Yeah, it's a frontal attack on the Portuguese and he loves it.

Sadly for Andy Dr Amaral's remark that SY should grow some balls seems more based on reality.

Unbelievable shite.

by whmon 20.03.14 1:06

I have never been a believer in conspiracy theories but I am really starting to wonder. WHY has the evidence of the dogs never played a part in all of this? When this particular 'suspect' is discredited as we all know he will be, another one will take his or her place. PLEASE can the police just look at the cadaver scent. I'm really beginning to believe in a cover up and I don't want to, I want to believe better in the authorities.

by Guest 20.03.14 1:14

Have to say I really do not feel it was an Arsenal supporter that did it nah

more likely Chelsea supporter with Gunners shirt on to discredit Arsenal, yes

I believe the pros have quite a few Chelsea supporters among them, probably one of them who did it! yes

by lj 20.03.14 1:27

Mirage wrote:I think old Andy was sending out a subliminal message - he wants this case binned.

You are in top shape today!

by Guest 20.03.14 1:32

Found the culprit anyway [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by lj 20.03.14 1:40

whmon wrote:I have never been a believer in conspiracy theories but I am really starting to wonder. WHY has the evidence of the dogs never played a part in all of this? When this particular 'suspect' is discredited as we all know he will be, another one will take his or her place. PLEASE can the police just look at the cadaver scent. I'm really beginning to believe in a cover up and I don't want to, I want to believe better in the authorities.

They do it rather smart: instead trying to invalidate it, they just completely ignore it. They have to: if they accept the evidence from the cadaver dogs it is over. Apart from a being a paedophilic- necrophiliac, he also has the patience of Job to wait long enough until cadaver smell develops, and steel nerves to just hang around while Gerry and the pacing makers dash in and out of the apartment.

ETA: he being the abductor

by jeanmonroe 20.03.14 2:24

lj

Gerry and the pacing makers

laughat

-------------------

Or

Gerry and the piss takers winkwink

by notlongnow 20.03.14 2:46

Yes this makes sense.

If you are going to make for the perfect crime you break into villas while with a few work mates,then for a quick getaway use a bin lorry.

Pretty sure the great train robbers used a milk float to outsmart the police.

by jeanmonroe 20.03.14 3:12

The biggest 'revelation' for DCI Redwood was when 'loner' Stinky Fella called himself on one of three mobiles he had on him, cause Andy picked up on the 'red hot' phone ping exchanges outside of apartment 5A,!

But those 'pings' didn't 'fool' our Andy.

He knew Stinky Fella was a lone sex perv because it was all in the files since May 2009, and in his possession since May 2011.

The only teeny, weeny 'mistake', if you can call it that, is that Andy 'forgot' to tell white British holiday makers, going to the Algarve, since 2011, that there is a stinky sex perv intent on 'targetting' their kiddies,

Still, such an easy 'mistake' to make, for such a busy man, you'll agree, won't you?

by lj 20.03.14 5:47

jeanmonroe wrote:lj

Gerry and the pacing makers

-------------------

Or

Gerry and the piss takers

That's a good one too!

by Seek truth 20.03.14 5:48

Didn't Kate write about this in her book years ago?

sarcastic

by watendlath 20.03.14 6:04

Cherry wrote:Have to say I really do not feel it was an Arsenal supporter that did it more likely Chelsea supporter with Gunners shirt on to discredit Arsenal, I believe the pros have quite a few Chelsea supporters among them, probably one of them who did it!

That's unfair on Chelsea supporters.

I'd say this has all the hallmarks of a wee Celtic supporter.

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

by canada12 20.03.14 6:50

Seek truth wrote:Didn't Kate write about this in her book years ago?

If Kate wrote about this in The Bewk then I can see the logic in SY investigating it.

I believe AR was being honest when he said they were investigating with a view towards identifying and eliminating this person from their lines of inquiry.

As I said before, knocking the legs out from underneath all McCann lines of defense if this should go to court.

Due diligence, no matter how silly it seems on the surface.

by Seek truth 20.03.14 7:15

Red top? No forced entry? Sitting on beds and exchanging a few words?

It's got to be Father Christmas!

Ah ha ha, Ho Ho Ho!

by Guest 20.03.14 7:17

Okeydokey wrote:
Thanks Nereid for that reminder. I had forgotten how detailed the claims were.

Yeah, I must admit that these supposed attacks are the only thing that give me any pause for thought about McCann culpability and I expected the issue to rear its head again at some point. I started [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] about it a while ago.

So if we take things at face value, as I said earlier, the attacker must have had knowledge of the occupants and a means of entry. Andy's a detective - I trust he is now checking to see if the properties had a common letting agent (villas were mentioned rather than apartments) or if, say, the same taxi firm was used for airport transfers.

It still doesn't fit with the McCann case though. Completely different MO and completely different outcome.

It seems that Edgar knew the identity of those affected. Did Kate ever contact them, I wonder? Strange that none of them shouted it from the rooftops at the time. I also wonder if you examined any holiday resort frequented by British tourists you would find a similar "background" level of sex assaults, which nobody would be keen to advertise?

by Guest 20.03.14 7:40

AndyB wrote:
dantezebu wrote:From the guardian:
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

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

Thsi is the only significant news IMO.
It seems Redwood is taking the dog indications into account.

Thank you for pointing this out dantezebu. In my anger I had failed to digest the Guardian article properly when I first read it. Obviously I hope you're right and they're moving away from the ridiculous abduction theory. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks that, even if you are right, its a precursor to setting up mysteron/target man as the one that caused Madeleine's death

Andy I don't think you did miss this. From what I can see on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
there were TWO guardian articles:

The first one from the press association at 11.43
with the quote:
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann."

ie in reference to the abduction

And the second one by James Meikle at 11.43
with the quote:
"Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. "These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance," he said."

this one in reference to her being alive.

by tiny 20.03.14 7:54

Its not only the mccanns who have let Madeleine down ITS REDWOOD AS WELL angry2

by Guest 20.03.14 8:10

dantezebu wrote:
AndyB wrote:
dantezebu wrote:From the guardian:
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

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

Thsi is the only significant news IMO.
It seems Redwood is taking the dog indications into account.

Thank you for pointing this out dantezebu. In my anger I had failed to digest the Guardian article properly when I first read it. Obviously I hope you're right and they're moving away from the ridiculous abduction theory. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks that, even if you are right, its a precursor to setting up mysteron/target man as the one that caused Madeleine's death

Andy I don't think you did miss this. From what I can see on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
there were TWO guardian articles:

The first one from the press association at 11.43
with the quote:
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann."

ie in reference to the abduction

And the second one by James Meikle at 11.43
with the quote:
"Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. "These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance," he said."

this one in reference to her being alive.

Dantzebu, that's perceptive of you;

in fact AR says:

1. we're not convinced it is an abduction;
2. we're not convinced the child is still alive

That will do for the time being, while SY debunks the rest of the myths

by Guest 20.03.14 8:15

I will say this for Operation Grange - they sure do have a lot of files.

by aiyoyo 20.03.14 8:19

Mirage wrote:I think old Andy was sending out a subliminal message - he wants this case binned.

Kate looks into the bin the next morning but the bin man was already gone and now Redwood is hoping to catch up with a bin man whose collection route is wide and spread out far covering geographical location of probably 50-100miles radius of PDL. Priceless!

Has Redwood not thought of checking with Town councils for employees list?
A bin man regularly wearing his trade-mark jersey - not difficult to single out is it? Many co-workers would know which man Police is talking about.

by Liz Eagles 20.03.14 8:20

Clay Regazzoni wrote:I will say this for Operation Grange - they sure do have a lot of files.

Oh that's ok Clay, the Met are good at shredding.

by aiyoyo 20.03.14 8:37

Woofer wrote:
loopzdaloop wrote:Its surely great news that the Portugese have reopened the case.

Does this mean arrests soon ?

They started their review months before SY and their proper investigation has been going on for ages - can`t remember exactly when it commenced.

IIRC, Portuguese starts their own review 10 months or a year ahead of MET.
If this - a string of itinerary crimes involving children - is the basis that justifies the official re-opening of the Maddie case, the Mccanns would have been informed of the re-opening. This would make sense how Kate knew about it hence her mentioning of it in her bewk, and hence why it was not in released files.
It therefore goes without saying MET were also told of this from the outset when they accepted PT invite to join the review.

Why did Redwood not announce this earlier, why now ?
Why is the bin man faceless ?
Is this bin man one of the two e-fits ?
Is this a new appeal or a re-appeal of the CW ?

Latest topics