CRIMEWATCH

mossman wrote:

tanszi wrote:Ireland Panda, and no that is not correct.  the Portuguese were not given the option to show it.

Redwood is quoted as saying Ireland will be later in the month.  I don't understand this.  BBC is a standard channel in Ireland.  Those who wanted to watch it would have one so on BBC.

It will be interesting to see if it is a different one to the BBC version, although as far as I know there has been no advertising of the programme being due to air yet.  In fact I would think many will say I saw that on BBC and so won't bother to watch it anyway.  

May be the Smiths will be invited?

my hubby has just started watching it and shouted me in other room and said to me omg i cannot believe it -why arnt they getting done for neglect bla bla you would think there would be a message on programme NOT TO LEAVE YOUR KIDS yes cap locks because we have been on a lot of holidays and never left ours - then he said wasnt there more friends there ? and this is from someone that thinks im obsessed about the case and doesnt usually talk about it - still watching it at min  

Broadcast of cmtv Portugal. The journalist came to PDL the day before the broadcast with E.fits and asked people if they recognized it.According to Astro, nobody did and some said it was BS. Murat, interviewed said that it was not good to produce such an E.Fit as innocent people could be accused like him:

http://cmtv.sapo.pt/atualidade/detalhe/habitantes-da-praia-da-luz-nao-reconhecem-retrato-robo.html

So the hard hitting investigation that is working night and day to uncover new and fresh exciting news is that Tanner's sighting was just some guy walking from the crèche so "the center of the investigation for 6 years" was wrong thanks to them -  those foolish PJ!!  - which opens up the timeline from 915 to ten pm so the abduction could have happened, because they had more time than they would have had, if you believed all the timeline crap the Tapas 9 came up with -- you know, provided you also discount Matt Oldfield's check as rubbish, so basically the friends screwed up the investigation.

It's hard to position SY as getting it right, thank God, finally -- and the PJ getting it wrong, though, which is what makes this exciting new breakthrough information -  because in fact the PJ did not have bundle man at the center of the investigation, they thought it was rubbish right from the start, only TM "firmly believed" it was Madeleine being taken and then changed their stories all around to fit that timeline. Which is what the PJ suspected all along.

But now they will focus massive efforts on the Smith sighting - but without mentioning that the Smiths thought this guy was Gerry McCann.

that 's the big new info? It might have been the Smith sighting guy. Who looks like Gerry (and also like the detective, kind of). And it might have been yet another guy in a resort town with night crèches taking HIS kid home. They don't know. But here's an exciting new breakthrough efit, lol.

Now can this Redwood detective really discount Jane, discount Matt, and discount all the checking and the timeline,  in order to bring us this amazing new information - and still not tumble to the fact that the bringers of misinformation and the promoters of misinformation, at great expense, and massive PR effort intended to mislead the investigation -  and the refusers of reconstruction and hirers of extradition lawyers so they would not have to face the facts - were the very same people... arguidos - and that's a bit dodgy?

The recon with all of them jumping up etc just looked like BS. I don't believe they played musical chairs that way. It makes it really ludicrous when you actually see it.

But the new information brings as much to it about what they are not saying, as about what they are saying... or it should. Shouldn't it?

Yes, the Tapas 9 have really painted themselves into a corner. Now we must believe that the "abductor" snuck into the apartment sometime between when the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar at 8:35 and Gerry's check at 9:05. But during that time period, there were Tanner, the Oldfields, O'Brien, and the Paynes and Webster all making their way to the Tapas Bar. There was also Oldfield's alleged visit to hurry up the Paynes which required him to pass the McCann's apartment twice. Not much opportunity for an abductor to sneak into the apartment, but he had to have been there because the door was not as Gerry had left it. The abductor being in the apartment at 9:05 does not fit well with the Smith sighting, as abductors don't generally hang out in apartments or wander the streets for nearly an hour, particularly if they had nearly been caught.

What is so frustrating about this case is the glaring discrepancies for which the T9 have been given a free pass. Why haven't SY re-interviewed Oldfied and Tanner at the very least? Their outright lies and fabrications could unravel this case, but not unless somebody exposes them.

jinvta wrote:Yes, the Tapas 9 have really painted themselves into a corner. Now we must believe that the "abductor" snuck into the apartment sometime between when the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar at 8:35 and Gerry's check at 9:05. But during that time period, there were Tanner, the Oldfields, O'Brien, and the Paynes and Webster all making their way to the Tapas Bar. There was also Oldfield's alleged visit to hurry up the Paynes which required him to pass the McCann's apartment twice. Not much opportunity for an abductor to sneak into the apartment, but he had to have been there because the door was not as Gerry had left it. The abductor being in the apartment at 9:05 does not fit well with the Smith sighting, as abductors don't generally hang out in apartments or wander the streets for nearly an hour, particularly if they had nearly been caught.

What is so frustrating about this case is the glaring discrepancies for which the T9 have been given a free pass. Why haven't SY re-interviewed Oldfied and Tanner at the very least? Their outright lies and fabrications could unravel this case, but not unless somebody exposes them.

Agree. It is like the very details McCanns invented to put the bad guy in the house, or how they "knew" there was an intruder (for Christ's sake! Your kid is missing; if you didn't kill her she didn't disappear into thin air, so you know there was an abductor just because she is GONE, you don't need all these details to figure THAT out!) are now waved off.

Maybe the same wind that slammed the door shut on Kate pulled it open for Gerry.

I can't see going over the PJ interviews and then the rogatory stuff and not finding these discrepancies to be worth digging into, why on earth were they so full of bull? - but maybe G&C are advised by their lawyers not to respond and SY is allowing that. Redwood doesn't look like he's all that cagey but he IS a SY detective. So maybe he has a reason. Maybe he's just a dolt who needs to be seen to be doing something so that the tax payers are getting their money's worth and your PM doesn't look bad.

widowan wrote:
....The recon with all of them jumping up etc just looked like BS. I don't believe they played musical chairs that way. It makes it really ludicrous when you actually see it....

Exactly. No-one would carry on like that.

Amazing also that Kate would have just closed the kids' bedroom door without even looking at them, had the door not SLAMMED shut like it was possessed by the devil. WHO wouldn't want to look at their sleeping babies to check no-one was over-heating, silently choking on their own vomit, lying in a soaking wet nappy or worse?

jinvta wrote:Yes, the Tapas 9 have really painted themselves into a corner. Now we must believe that the "abductor" snuck into the apartment sometime between when the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar at 8:35 and Gerry's check at 9:05. But during that time period, there were Tanner, the Oldfields, O'Brien, and the Paynes and Webster all making their way to the Tapas Bar. There was also Oldfield's alleged visit to hurry up the Paynes which required him to pass the McCann's apartment twice. Not much opportunity for an abductor to sneak into the apartment, but he had to have been there because the door was not as Gerry had left it. The abductor being in the apartment at 9:05 does not fit well with the Smith sighting, as abductors don't generally hang out in apartments or wander the streets for nearly an hour, particularly if they had nearly been caught.

What is so frustrating about this case is the glaring discrepancies for which the T9 have been given a free pass. Why haven't SY re-interviewed Oldfied and Tanner at the very least? Their outright lies and fabrications could unravel this case, but not unless somebody exposes them.

Perhaps they have, though they're not going to tell us, unless it being public knowledge will advance the investigation.

All very frustrating, but we are just bystanders.

Wintabells wrote:

widowan wrote:
....The recon with all of them jumping up etc just looked like BS. I don't believe they played musical chairs that way. It makes it really ludicrous when you actually see it....

Exactly. No-one would carry on like that.

Amazing also that Kate would have just closed the kids' bedroom door without even looking at them, had the door not SLAMMED shut like it was possessed by the devil. WHO wouldn't want to look at their sleeping babies to check no-one was over-heating, silently choking on their own vomit, lying in a soaking wet nappy or worse?

I don't know. I think a lot of this is that Kate gets the hair standing up on the back of my neck, both she and Gerry seem to get people's backs up. I do feel sorry for her in that she lost a child in whatever way, and I would not wish that on my worst enemy. However the mewling about how it's not their FAULT - on this show - just from the beginning, it was like on the Mirror forum, the words "group of British doctors on holiday in the Algarve" hit a nerve, probably unfairly, but they have played right into it - Gerry with his sneering expression and just how certain they were that they knew better than everyone about everything, the police, the staff who warned them not to leave the children unattended - so GD arrogant, and then when they are caught out, it must be the incompetent sardine munchers' fault, etc.

Kate in the Crimewatch does not look like the Kate that wrote the book - but she comes across as hard as nails unless she is on camera (and even then, sometimes). I can't believe someone would leave their pale, tired daughter (who had been crying and upset at camp) alone another night after she had mentioned crying and being alone the night previously and Mrs Fenn heard her scream and cry for over an hour on another night.

I don't think the kids were asleep IN SECONDS after they put them in their cots, I think they left seconds later and once again left those kids alone and vulnerable and the kind of people who can do that - so they aren't late for their friends and being so into each other and the free vino etc - don't give much of a damn if the kids' diaper is soaked or they are uncovered to the chill of the night. THey were on holiday and the kids were in the way of that sometimes, and necessary precautions weren't taken.

Why did they take the children on holiday at all? They had doting relatives who doubtless would have looked after them. They could have played tennis and gone jogging, and sat sampling the local food and wine with their friends, with no worry at all! Everyone would have been happier that way... and Madeleine would not be missing.

Twin 2 year olds and a 3 year old might be a handful for grandparents and I think if it were me, I'd expect my daughter to take her kids on holiday and not leave them with me for a week. That is a long time. A lot of people "want" kids who don't as it turns out want to spend time with them. I was thinking about my own kid and her reaction if I had expected to put her in a daycare in a strange place - she was shy - every day every time it was open, and then leave her alone at night which never in her life had she been alone at night, not every child is the same but I just can't see that going over well with the child. or being good for her. And given the screaming fits & crying I would say that is actually the case here.

the idea of having the bedtime routine start at 630 -! -

If you want me time you've got to be willing to let the kids put themselves to sleep and steel yourself to the drama, which is fine at home. but in a strange place keeping to a routine on holiday is a lot to expect from what were essentially still toddlers. The parents demanded far more restraint and self control from the kids than they did of themselves, they were not willing to stay behind for a more than a few seconds after dumping the kids in bed. Kids know when you are going to leave them and when you want them to sleep they never do.

We can't look after our small grandchildren at all now, as we are both too seriously disabled, so I know where you are coming from widowan. Nonetheless, my brother in law and his wife, who are younger and retired, but fit, occasionally look after their grandchildren, certainly for as long as a week, to allow their parents an adults only break.

We had many a genuine 'family holiday' when our children were at the same young age as Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, and I am afraid when children are that young, their needs have to take priority over their parents needs, and a suitable holiday place for THEM selected, and suitable fun activities for small children followed - like playing in the shallows of the sea and building sandcastles etc. FGS it is usually fun for the adults, though tiring, as well. It is called family life, I think.

comperedna wrote:We can't look after our small grandchildren at all now, as we are both too seriously disabled, so I know where you are coming from widowan. Nonetheless, my brother in law and his wife, who are younger and retired, but fit, occasionally look after their grandchildren, certainly for as long as a week, to allow their parents an adults only break.

We had many a genuine 'family holiday' when our children were at the same young age as Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, and I am afraid when children are that young, their needs have to take priority over their parents needs, and a suitable holiday place for THEM selected, and suitable fun activities for small children followed - like playing in the shallows of the sea and building sandcastles etc. FGS it is usually fun for the adults, though tiring, as well. It is called family life, I think.

But if that's not fun for you and you want to do grown up things with friends, then the kids don't always come first. I don't think everyone believes that the kids come first, or their idea of what that means is different.

I enjoyed time with the kids in our family, but it can be overwhelmingly like work when they are that age. Group holidays make their own demands on your time etc and in all it seems like a lot of effort for the "relaxation" of a resort holiday.

Widowan. I only mean that if you take small children away with you on holiday they DO have to come first in the sense that you have to plan carefully for their needs, and to be sure they too have a good time doing the kinds of things they enjoy. Parents are stupid if they think they can safely ponce around doing adult only activities and leave them in creches all the time (why take them if so) or worse, leave them unattended, especially at night.

People differ in how much they enjoy being with small children and some are shocked about the change it inevitably makes to their lives. I do not at all mean adults should not have their own wishes and choices catered for. Not a bit of it, but that too takes planning.

jassi wrote:

jinvta wrote:Yes, the Tapas 9 have really painted themselves into a corner. Now we must believe that the "abductor" snuck into the apartment sometime between when the McCanns left for the Tapas Bar at 8:35 and Gerry's check at 9:05. But during that time period, there were Tanner, the Oldfields, O'Brien, and the Paynes and Webster all making their way to the Tapas Bar. There was also Oldfield's alleged visit to hurry up the Paynes which required him to pass the McCann's apartment twice. Not much opportunity for an abductor to sneak into the apartment, but he had to have been there because the door was not as Gerry had left it. The abductor being in the apartment at 9:05 does not fit well with the Smith sighting, as abductors don't generally hang out in apartments or wander the streets for nearly an hour, particularly if they had nearly been caught.

What is so frustrating about this case is the glaring discrepancies for which the T9 have been given a free pass. Why haven't SY re-interviewed Oldfied and Tanner at the very least? Their outright lies and fabrications could unravel this case, but not unless somebody exposes them.

Perhaps they have, though they're not going to tell us, unless it being public knowledge will advance the investigation.

All very frustrating, but we are just bystanders.

True enough. And as much as we hated the interference by Clarence to sway the investigation and public opinion, I think we should be aware that we are not going to be allowed as web fora, to do that same thing nor should we, probably. This isn't a witch burning, nor a campaign for election and while the wheels of justice grind slowly they do grind and a lot of that has to be done privately or it will hurt the investigation.

comperedna wrote:Widowan. I only mean that if you take small children away with you on holiday they DO have to come first in the sense that you have to plan carefully for their needs, and to be sure they too have a good time doing the kinds of things they enjoy. Parents are stupid if they think they can safely ponce around doing adult only activities and leave them in creches all the time (why take them if so) or worse, leave them unattended, especially at night.

People differ in how much they enjoy being with small children and some are shocked about the change it inevitably makes to their lives. I do not at all mean adults should not have their own wishes and choices catered for. Not a bit of it, but that too takes planning.

Hi comparedna, my ex wasn't keen on Holidays and one year I took my Sons to my Parents house and my younger Sister and I took our children to a Camp Site Holiday . It rained almost every day , we spent a lot of time washing their clothes and drying them in the Caravan , but also took them on the Bus to various places of interest. It was their holiday too, but the McCanns hardly saw their children . I know the other Tapas Group went to the Paraiso Restaurant , but can't remember seeing them all together, in fact, the day Madeleine went in a Boat with the Creche Nanny, some of the Tapas group were on the Beach , it seems they did not mix with the McCanns during the day.

comperedna wrote:Widowan. I only mean that if you take small children away with you on holiday they DO have to come first in the sense that you have to plan carefully for their needs, and to be sure they too have a good time doing the kinds of things they enjoy. Parents are stupid if they think they can safely ponce around doing adult only activities and leave them in creches all the time (why take them if so) or worse, leave them unattended, especially at night.

People differ in how much they enjoy being with small children and some are shocked about the change it inevitably makes to their lives. I do not at all mean adults should not have their own wishes and choices catered for. Not a bit of it, but that too takes planning.

I agree with you! I do love being with small kids and the idea of a perfect career for me when I was younger, was preschool teacher, not everyone's cup of tea, and that's fine - if we all taught preschool there would be no doctors and lawyers and double glazing magnates.  


I get the sense that the needs of the children were not consulted either before the holiday or during it. Too cold to go to the beach? We often spent time on the beach in winter, you dress differently but it's still fun, it's the muchness of sand, the unique experience of the sea, etc. They don't have to swim.

Adults need adult company and some relaxation too I realize that, but that seems to have been catered for amply.

The crèche in the day and the early nights and the fact they did not spend even one full day with their kids taken with the rushing off before they are even asleep fully tells me they were desperate for a bit of fun whereas the kids need to relax and have time with their "mummy and daddy and sister" etc which they did not get.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03k2gbr

There will be an update on the case on 28th November.

Thanks, NBY.

Let's hope they have some real, informative updates to talk about, rather than a potted rehash of the original prog and e-fits followed by a vague promise that 'police are following up interesting leads' etc.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03k2gbr

There will be an update on the case on 28th November.

Just after the conclusion of the libel trial. How interesting.

We are not the only ones, apparently, not really convinced by the SY revelation about the father with his daughter. The McCann think the same:Tannerman is probably not Fatherman. Poor Andy!
Here the page "personne of interest" on their site


http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us

Have you seen these men? Do you know who they might be?
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.

Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.

Thanks frenchperson, Redwood has shown his inability to find anything of consequence and you have to wonder what was found in the Review to take it further by having an investigation . Could have been the plea from Kate in the Sun, but apart from the public, why havn't some MP's queried the cost when they read this rubbish.

Yes but with this new entry on the findmadeleine, we can see that the McCann, openly, say they don't trust SY. Practically,they say that Redwood was wrong to eliminate the Tanner"s sighting. It's a snub for SY.
It shows that the relationship between SY and the McCanns is not that idyilic.
It also shows their arrogance.They give lessons to the Police.
And SY doesn't react.
How strange.

Again, this new entry:

"Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE..."[

frencheuropean wrote:Yes but with this new entry on the findmadeleine, we can see that the McCann, openly, say they don't trust SY. Practically,they say that Redwood was wrong to eliminate the Tanner"s sighting. It's a snub for SY.
It shows that the relationship between SY and the McCanns is not that idyilic.
It also shows their arrogance.They give lessons to the Police.
And SY doesn't react.
How strange.

Again, this new entry:

"Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE..."[

SY are really clutching at straws and in the process making themselves look ridiculous .....someone ought to put a sticking plaster over Redwoods mouth to stop him making a fool of himself and SY all the time. The reason the McCanns didn,t want Tanners sighting eliminated was because it left the way to confirm that no-one checked on the children from 9pm til 10pm.

This proves once and for all that the McCanns and SY are not on the same page.
What is surprising is that the McCanns are so brazen about it.

In that statement, 'HOWEVER ...' is the big, big word.
Roughly translated, it means that Redwood is saying one thing, but they don't trust his judgement on it.

Or perhaps more accurately, Tannerman has been officially eliminated but they still have to cling on to him otherwise their whole skanky cover-up gets flushed down the gurgler.

Whatever - it's tantamount to accusing the Met of lying when they say they've identified this guy.

FromTwitter:

Syn0nymph ‏@Syn0nymph 1h

@Dantew28 @jontaito SY getting someone to look into why FM page contradicts them now http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html … #mccann pic.twitter.com/6zkiRaepIL