Radio Silence from TM after Crime Watch

McCanns aren't saying much lately, not since the story hit Crime Watch. Or maybe it was after the news got ahold of the story that they themselves had the files suppressed.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/madeleine-mccann-update-former-detective-believes-new-sketches-of-suspect-could-be-breakthrough-in-case/

I saw this from October 21, the week after Crime Watch was broadcast. No comments have been left. it's not a big story here.

They don't mention that Smiths contacted cops based on recognizing Gerry - they knew that McCann PIs had done the efits - yet - they imply that the reason the SY did not have the efits was because the PJ held them back - that's how it reads to me at least.

I wonder what is going on in Rothley and in the offices of the TM lawyers these days?

The last time it was this quiet yet you could FEEL the wheels turning, was that long ago time of the T 9 and lawyers meeting in Rothley before the Rogatory interviews. Remember, Clarence had some kind of outraged response to being asked about the timing - and whether this wasn't them getting together to compare notes with legal advice... Not at all, how offensive to be asked that - it had just been a while since they had gotten together since Madeleine's disappearance (like they are some sort of a club, which in a way they are) and IN NO WAY getting their stories straight.

I think if they are innocent of the disappearance, then SY finding Tannerman was simply a tourist carrying his own child home must be somewhat difficult if not devastating. They thought they knew what happened to her, they had a efit, and perhaps best of all they also had an alibi for themselves since all were present and accounted for, by their spouses at least and Gerry by Jez Wilkins so if innocent that would let SY get on with the investigation into this person and finding him rather than "wasting time" as PJ did obsessing over the timelines and crime scene and suspecting the parents. Now they have nothing, and it is as if Madeleine disappeared into thin air, they spent £300,000 (other people's money, but still) searching for this guy, they made an ass of themselves insisting on what was a mistaken sighting, repeatedly, and it's there in black and white in the book - six years wasted on this and if possible, further off from finding what happened to Madeleine.

If they are involved in the disappearance and cover up then it's more than devastating, it opens the door for Jane's sighting to have been a set up, organized to alibi Gerry and with the suppression of the Exton files and Smith efit, it is a very different ball game.

In either case it's one that is going to require sensitive PR handling. In the olden days wouldn't Clarence have come out - when they found a person who could have been the abductor but wasn't - and said something about they never get their hopes up since "we" get so many of these leads - or they keep hoping, although disappointed this time we will carry on - or something.

Clarence must be just itching to control how this is viewed by the public - normally he'd be ON IT with some jargon- filled canned response - or an explanation that wouldn't fool an 8 year old, if it's something that looks bad for them.

He must be muzzled?

It may well be that he's muzzled himself.

At the next general election (2015) he's standing as Tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion.
He's probably learning that any emphasis on his long relationship with the McCanns is doing him no favours and he's putting some clear blue water between himself and them.

almostgothic wrote:It may well be that he's muzzled himself.

At the next general election (2015) he's standing as Tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion.
He's probably learning that any emphasis on his long relationship with the McCanns is doing him no favours and he's putting some clear blue water between himself and them.

Well, of all the ingratitude! They have been paying him all this time and he just attaches himself to their case and gets his 15 minutes, and then abandons them when there's something better to do, like a bunch of doctors leaving their toddlers to go out drinking.

Talk about pulling a McCann.

Clarence will slot in nicely with the mixed bag of 700 or so deviants cheats and liars in the Commons. Give it a couple of years and he'll be trying for his knighthood.. Lord Pinko of Rothley.

widowan wrote:

almostgothic wrote:It may well be that he's muzzled himself.

At the next general election (2015) he's standing as Tory candidate for Brighton Pavilion.
He's probably learning that any emphasis on his long relationship with the McCanns is doing him no favours and he's putting some clear blue water between himself and them.

Well, of all the ingratitude! They have been paying him all this time and he just attaches himself to their case and gets his 15 minutes, and then abandons them when there's something better to do, like a bunch of doctors leaving their toddlers to go out drinking.

Talk about pulling a McCann.

And he's gone from someone who hardly anyone had heard of to being a household name, thanks to the McCanns, so he got paid into the bargain for something that's given him just as high a profile. Mission accomplished, time to move on. Anyway, Gerry's Labour so not good for a Tory to get too attached to him.

Somehow though, you would have thought someone would be saying SOMETHING although I suppose with the story coming out that they'd warned Exton off publishing the report and efit they would like for there to be little notice of that and let it go away quietly. There really IS no innocent explanation for that - preferring the efit of the person Jane didn't see, to the one Smith DID see - except that Jane's doesn't look like Gerry and Smith's one does, as well as Jane's provides an alibi while - if the time dinner broke up really was 935-940 - Smith's does not.

Scotland Yard could have well said all this media attention screwed up the initial investigation so keep mum. We will release info we want people to have.

Clarence for MP. What bad timing if they were brought in for questioning again, for him... wonder why the LDT doesn't rear its head again? It's not admissible in PT court but then it's not admissible here either and people take them all the time to show they have nothing to hide.

widowan wrote:

Clarence for MP. What bad timing if they were brought in for questioning again, for him... wonder why the LDT doesn't rear its head again? It's not admissible in PT court but then it's not admissible here either and people take them all the time to show they have nothing to hide.
.......................................................................................

LDT (Lie Detector Test)

In the case of Jaycee Duggard, who the McCann's 'quote' ad nauseun, her step father, Carl Probyn took, and PASSED, FOUR LDT's to 'prove' he had nothing to do with her disappearance.

Which he didn't!

WHY the McCanns are so scared of taking just ONE LDT is anyones guess.

We've only recently had Lorraine Kelly on tv asking not once, but twice, if Amanda Knox would take a LDT to 'clear' herself once and for all.

Maybe the next time the McCanns are on Lorraines sofa she'll ask them if they are going to take an LDT!

Like she asked Amanda.

Only to 'clear' themselves, once and for all, you understand.

Won't hold my breath though.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-23/amanda-knox-speaks-ahead-of-retrial/

Actual Lorraine asking question about LDT to AK now ..........WHOOSHED CLUNKED!

Probably someone at ITV pointed out to LK that it is 'strange' that she never asks the McCanns if they would take a LDT.

(Dosen't matter 'clip' is gone, i downloaded and copied it at the time.)

My mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMxK-Bce8_k

Why are people being prevented from asking questions ...



This is from 2009 about the documentary ...



Maddie’s father prepares another visit to Portugal


Photo : © Luis Silva 2009

Gerry McCann, the father of the English child that disappeared in Praia da Luz, Algarve, in May 2007, is preparing another trip to Portugal, where, according to someone close to the couple, the two new investigators say they made “new discoveries” about what happened to Maddie.
Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley, the two retired policemen that the McCann couple hired to analyse the documents that were released by the Public Ministry, now say that the child is being held in the area by one of five possible abductors that they have already identified. Those two investigators, that replaced an already long list of alleged detectives and military officers that have worked for the McCanns, further accuse the PJ of having ignored a list of 18 alleged perverts and a series of 6 attacks against English children in the Algarve.
Contrary to what was always stated by the detectives from Metodo 3 and the former military officers from Control Risks Group (CRG), two agencies that the McCann couple hired to allegedly search for Maddie, the new investigators don’t believe that the little girl was abducted by a child trafficking network or taken on board of a ship, some of the many theories that have been put forward to explain Madeleine’s disappearance.
Although the exact date of Gerry McCann’s trip to Portugal is not known yet, a source close to the couple confirmed that Madeleine’s father “will be in the Algarve when the two investigators deem it necessary”.
“Gerry McCann once challenged the PJ to find Madeleine’s body”, one of the PJ inspectors in Portimão said, adding that “now it’s our turn to challenge him: that he comes to Portugal to find his daughter. That is all that we ask from him. Otherwise, he should ask for the process to be reopened and he should return with his friends, to finally cooperate with justice.”

“Kate McCann” is missing

Lisa Donovan, the "fake" Kate McCann

In the new documentary about the case, which SIC presented last night, titled “Maddie: Two years of anguish”, the images where American actress Lisa Donovan played Kate McCann’s role in the reconstitution of what supposedly happened on the night of the 3rd of May 2007, have disappeared.

A source at Mentorn Media – which produced the documentary for Channel 4 – told that the initiative to remove those images came from Gerry McCann, explaining that “the decision was made after the documentary by Gonçalo Amaral was broadcast”, as we had already reported. According to the same source, “the representation of what Kate had done on the night that Maddie disappeared was not convincing and raised some doubts”.

But it was not only the images of the false Kate that were cut, and many of the facts that lie at the core of Maddie’s disappearance, like David Payne’s visit to the apartment between 6 and 7 p.m., ended up not even being mentioned: David’s wife herself told the police that she didn’t know where her husband was during that time lapse; while Kate and David speak about a 30 second visit, the child’s father mentions half an hour. The matter was of crucial importance to the PJ because that is the time lapse during which Madeleine is seen alive by someone outside of the couple.

The actress, who had been chosen during a casting in England, wasn’t able to explain the mystery behind the cutting of the images that were filmed in Praia da Luz, nevertheless confirming that she was paid for her work. The actress is forbidden from revealing to the media the contents of the images that Mentorn Media filmed, and the same happens with the other 14 actors.

FORBIDDEN.....like the PI's FORBIDDEN to reveal the efit...



Where is all this money coming from to FORBID these people talking ?

Exactly kitti

Quote
The actress, who had been chosen during a casting in England, wasn’t able to explain the mystery behind the cutting of the images that were filmed in Praia da Luz, nevertheless confirming that she was paid for her work. The actress is forbidden from revealing to the media the contents of the images that Mentorn Media filmed, and the same happens with the other 14 actors.
Unquote.
£ Millions of donated money has been spent suing and silencing the public and media rather than searching for Madeleine, now it seems £ millions more of public money is being spent to find/review Madeleine's disappearance and possible death. Yet there are still restrictions in place revealing to the media and the public the contents of a privately made publication, purportedly representative of Madeleine's final hours.

What is our judicial system doing in allowing these restrictions and gagging orders to remain insitu while allowing the parents and their spokesperson to manipulate what appears in the media?

malena stool wrote:

"The actress, who had been chosen during a casting in England, wasn’t able to explain the mystery behind the cutting of the images that were filmed in Praia da Luz, nevertheless confirming that she was paid for her work. The actress is forbidden from revealing to the media the contents of the images that Mentorn Media filmed, and the same happens with the other 14 actors."
_______________________________________________________________________

Just a reminder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_3hCrktOXw

LD asked "what do you think has happened to Madeleine"?

LD "it's not for me to say"

Memo to LD:

SHE WAS FCUKING 'ABDUCTED'!

Anyway, what are the McCanns going to do to LD if she just says 'F**k the McCanns i'm going to tell the world about my 'role' in PDL"?

Threaten her?

With what?

She'd make more money telling the 'free' press in USA than ever the McCanns could pay her 'to keep quiet'

WHAT are they so afraid of that she'll 'say' if 'ungagged'?

malena stool wrote:Exactly kitti

Quote
The actress, who had been chosen during a casting in England, wasn’t able to explain the mystery behind the cutting of the images that were filmed in Praia da Luz, nevertheless confirming that she was paid for her work. The actress is forbidden from revealing to the media the contents of the images that Mentorn Media filmed, and the same happens with the other 14 actors.
Unquote.
£ Millions of donated money has been spent suing and silencing the public and media rather than searching for Madeleine, now it seems £ millions more of public money is being spent to find/review Madeleine's disappearance and possible death. Yet there are still restrictions in place revealing to the media and the public the contents of a privately made publication, purportedly representative of Madeleine's final hours.

What is our judicial system doing in allowing these restrictions and gagging orders to remain insitu while allowing the parents and their spokesperson to manipulate what appears in the media?

I'd hope what they are doing now, is keeping more conjecture and speculation from happening, keeping the case close to their vest - I don't see the parents being allowed to manipulate what is in the press NOW - indeed now they are very quiet - that "reconstruction" that got silenced and whoosh clucked was done in 2009.

HOWEVER, as with the Exton files and efit, those would have been (I hope) given to SY. The actress was "forbidden" under contract not to reveal the details to the public but she can hardly have been forbidden from doing so with regards to the investigation. Same with Metodo 3 files including the contract. What were they actually being PAID to do? "Find" sightings? Your compensation plan is your business plan - if they were being paid to find sightings then find sightings they would do, how they were being measured and compensated is critical. A parents whose child had been abducted would not be paying by the sighting nor by ludicrous stories given out about being on Madeleine's trail (conveniently timed to align with the news about the Rothley meeting to in no way get stories straight, which was big news in some circles).

I presume what they wanted out of the reconstruction mockumentary was kate opening the door after it slammed shut (how do you get THAT to happen?) to see the curtains billowing inward. A question might be, how did they go from billowing inward to tucked behind the bed that was pushed against the wall, trapping them there, and photographed trapping them there in the crime scene photographs?

How did they both billow inwards when that set of windows slides to the side, not up - so only one pane would have a breeze coming through. And the curtains if they billowed in, had to have been tucked back down later, which, like Gerry fiddling the blinds from outside, is clearly evidence of the witnesses/ suspects messing around with key forensic evidence.

There was no need for Gerry to see if the blinds could be pushed up from outside, since the patio door was left open, if they believed someone had broken in that way why on EARTH would you touch a single hair in that crime scene? You would know the abductors traces and fingerprints etc would be there and you'd be destroying them!

if they were pursuing the theory that all doors were locked, abductor "broke in and jimmied the window and smashed the shutters" -they'd have left it the hell alone -rather than standing around destroying evidence Gerry should have been out looking, not trying to figure out how he could position the abductor getting into the apt.

I noticed they stayed silent and off the tv after SY said two people comforted a crying Maddie the night before she disappeared.

What the significance of that is l don't know but it was telling.....

jeanmonroe wrote:widowan wrote:

Clarence for MP. What bad timing if they were brought in for questioning again, for him... wonder why the LDT doesn't rear its head again? It's not admissible in PT court but then it's not admissible here either and people take them all the time to show they have nothing to hide.
.......................................................................................

LDT (Lie Detector Test)

In the case of Jaycee Duggard, who the McCann's 'quote' ad nauseun, her step father, Carl Probyn took, and PASSED, FOUR LDT's to 'prove' he had nothing to do with her disappearance.

Which he didn't!

WHY the McCanns are so scared of taking just ONE LDT is anyones guess.

We've only recently had Lorraine Kelly on tv asking not once, but twice, if Amanda Knox would take a LDT to 'clear' herself once and for all.

Maybe the next time the McCanns are on Lorraines sofa she'll ask them if they are going to take an LDT!

Like she asked Amanda.

Only to 'clear' themselves, once and for all, you understand.

Won't hold my breath though.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-09-23/amanda-knox-speaks-ahead-of-retrial/

Actual Lorraine asking question about LDT to AK now ..........WHOOSHED CLUNKED!

Probably someone at ITV pointed out to LK that it is 'strange' that she never asks the McCanns if they would take a LDT.

(Dosen't matter 'clip' is gone, i downloaded and copied it at the time.)

My mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMxK-Bce8_k

McCanns were allowed to dictate what questions would be asked in interviews, they made that plain enough.

The LDT issue is interesting to me. As a lawyer I would counsel my client to do the things that could only help them, not do things that could only hurt them, including answer questions, especially under LDT situations.

mcCanns were not like Amanda in a foreign prison with every confidence about themselves broken down after grueling grilling by cops.

As you note, Jaycee's step father cooperated multiple times, even after the first time he was asked to come back and do one, when his lawyer (if he had retained one) might be at that point saying "Don't do this - they clearly have issues with your statement, it's not admissible, and you do not want to bring up more questions than you can answer" - he went back 3 more times.

Ed Smart I believe also took a LDT...

who didn't take one, was Casey Anthony, (unless given one privately by her attorney, which if she'd passed it, would have been publicized) and Scott Peterson (guilty of murdering his wife and dumping her body, then staging an abduction)

Scott Peterson's excuse for not taking one was that "the police didn't want him to because he was so upset that the results would not be accurate" (a lie - the police never said that) and "because his attorney told him too much time had passed" (again - not true). He did offer to go and take a private one, he offered to meet his lover at the office of a person who did private tests, but then did not go in because the police were tapping his phone and pulled up in the parking lot as he was set to go in.

It is not admissible but innocent people, knowing that they have nothing to hide and wanting to be ruled out, will take them and often INSIST on taking them particularly if the cops don't get off their back - they want the cops to rule them out and get on with it.

kate apparently agreed to take on but then put so many conditions around it the guy who would be conducting the test said it'd be impossible to do.

What were those conditions? You have to wonder. Certainly they'd be around the very things the police had doubts about - was Madeleine ASLEEP IN HER BED when you left? What time was that? Did you have anything to do with her disappearance? Did you kill your daughter? Was madeleine dead in apt 5a? Do you know who took her? Was the window open when you came in? Did you open the window? Did you administer any medication to madeleine on May 3? etc etc.

if she felt guilty for "whatever happened" ie, we are to blame as we "let her down" by not being there, then that might cause a funky reading for the question "Are you responsible" but that could be explained away by the obvious neglect and guilt for THAT since her being alone was Condition One for her being abducted. But she'd have passed the others - yes, she was asleep, no, I didn't give her drugs, no, I didn't kill her, No, she wasn't dead, No I didn't open the window - surely there is no GOOD reason to get an inconclusive reading on any of that.

As with Peterson she or TM claim that the LDT isn't admissible and whatever else - too much chance of a negative reading, in other words it could only hurt them.

Agreed about the LDT. Anyone who has nothing to hide and is absolutely positive about their innocence, would take a LDT. It may not be admissible, but it would be highly regarded by the investigation and would help to prevent wasting limited and valuable resources in investigating the parents. The fact that Kate initially claimed that she would take a LDT, and then rescinded, speaks volumes.

What is disappointing is that SY did not demand LDTs from not only the McCanns, but the entire Tapas lot, before any money was spent on the investigation. How could they have refused? And if they had, all of this money would not have been wasted. Still hoping that SY had a different tactic in mind and that they have been on to the McCanns all along.

jinvta wrote:Agreed about the LDT. Anyone who has nothing to hide and is absolutely positive about their innocence, would take a LDT. It may not be admissible, but it would be highly regarded by the investigation and would help to prevent wasting limited  and valuable resources in investigating the parents. The fact that Kate initially claimed that she would take a LDT, and then rescinded, speaks volumes.

What is disappointing is that SY did not demand LDTs from not only the McCanns, but the entire Tapas lot, before any money was spent on the investigation. How could they have refused? And if they had, all of this money would not have been wasted. Still hoping that SY had a different tactic in mind and that they have been on to the McCanns all along.

Maybe they DID take one and passed it?

Would the police have done one and kept that quiet? Okay, you passed. We sort of believe you. But we don't want you trumpeting this all out there, we're not blabbing everything about our investigation to the world.

McCanns wouldn't want to mention it either because the very notion that they'd be subjected to one, like any common suspects who weren't exonerated or ruled out or "cleared" - like they keep saying they were - would be an insult.

Meh, I don't know. I do think it would be fair to ask them to do this, so that the investigation could begin with a good sense of trust that McCanns were innocent instead of having that nagging concern, why won't they take a LDT?

I don't think a ldt will prove anything much one way or the other now. I think the time when it might have proved useful has long gone.

going back to DP visitng the macs flat ,I think you will find his wife also claimed she went back with km at around 7pm ,its in files I have read somewhere that's a new one so all 3 were there at some point ? joyce1938

widowan wrote:

Maybe they DID take one and passed it?

Would we ever have heard the end of it? Nah, not credible.

Kate McCann did agree to do a lie det test.



The person who was going to do it spoke out about it .



He said, never in my life have I been told what to ask a person, it wouldn't be a lie detector test then.

So, she agreed but only on the questions that SHE wanted asked.



So there wouldn't be...do you know where your daughter is....did you play any part in her disappearance.....same with Gerry....at your last check at 9.05 on Thursday 3rd may, did you see your daughter alive and well etc etc.



The questions would off been if the mccanns had their way...did you have a glass off wine on thursday 3rd may......do you wear glasses.....does the moon come out at night.....is Gerry a Pratt ......do kate swear....how many hours in the day.




Get my drift.....so the lie detector man refused to do it.

Iris wrote:

widowan wrote:

Maybe they DID take one and passed it?

Would we ever have heard the end of it ?  Nah, not credible.

OMG, I agree Iris. It would have been announced with great pomp and circumstance, and referred to in each and every piece of pink drivel ever written.

kitti wrote:Kate McCann did agree to do a lie det test.



The person who was going to do it spoke out about it .



He said, never in my life have I been told what to ask a person, it wouldn't be a lie detector test then.

So, she agreed but only on the questions that SHE wanted asked.



So there wouldn't be...do you know where your daughter is....did you play any part in her disappearance.....same with Gerry....at your last check at 9.05 on Thursday 3rd may, did you see your daughter alive and well etc etc.



The questions would off been if the mccanns had their way...did you have a glass off wine on thursday 3rd may......do you wear glasses.....does the moon come out at night.....is Gerry a Pratt ......do kate swear....how many hours in the day.




Get my drift.....so the lie detector man refused to do it.

Yes Kitti, the McCanns said they would take a lie detector test, and then diligently sabotaged any chance of it ever happening!  

Their words, actions, and body language over these past 6+ years have continuously enforced what a conniving, insincere pair they truly are (imo).

I have no idea about Portugal, but in the UK lie detector tests are, at least in court, where they are inadmissable, felt to be little better than mumbo jumbo. Americans who keep on about KM and GM not having taken them are culturally off beam. Here they do not come into the picture of criminal trials, or the investigation of cases at all. They would be given no credence, 'pass' or 'fail', and of course KM and GM would not take them.

joyce1938 wrote:going back to DP visitng the macs flat ,I think you will find his wife also claimed she went back with km at around 7pm ,its in files I have read somewhere that's a new one so all 3 were there at some point ? joyce1938

And Gerry I think......

Like the car didn't have any independent tests done on it from the mccanns....