Jump to content

Madeline McCann - Crimewatch appeal


Walter Bishop

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dusk_Till_Dawn

See, this is exactly the sort of stuff I was on about.

I'm only a minute and a half in and there's all this stuff about how these cadaver dogs are so amazing they secured the conviction of D'Andre Lane. Uh, well yes sort of. The findings of the dogs were part of a range of evidence offered by the prosecution, but the part when he admitted beating the 2 year old with a stick (wrapped in towelling and then duct tape!) simply because she had wet herself was also a bit of a bit of a clue. As were many other things. No wonder folk get carried away. Who on earth writes/creates this rubbish??

 

That's all correct. But you have to admit that certain people have tried to completely ignore or ridicule evidence which doesn't reflect too well on the McCanns. I'm not saying the dogs are proof of anything but to say that they're irrelevant is just as obtuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because as a few of us have said on this thread, I'm not convinced that the line of inquiry the police are following adds up. They seem to be disregarding glaring gaps in the evidence.

 

Without knowing the full picture or having reviewed the evidence, I'm amazed that so many people are so willing to jump to conclusions

.

Some folk always assume the worst of others, some folk are ghouls and prefer the sinister to anything else, some folk rely on the Daily Mail for their info, some folk resent the McCanns for getting help others haven't, some just plain don't like the McCanns and are therefore happy to assume the worst, some folk are happy to work on the premise that if you're a bit less than warm personality-wise, that's enough evidence to suggest you might have killed your own kid. Despite the fact that two police forces (with associated experts, detectives and resources) have reviewed the information and found nothing warranting prosecution and are both seemngly content that the McCanns aren't suspects, people would rather look to wacko blogs and adopt their patchy and biased interpretation of events. I haven't a clue what happened, but I'm definitely not joining the mob on that one and aligning myself with the conspiracy bampots.

 

When I say some folk, I'm talking generally rather than just the individuals on this thread. I don't even know how to begin to start describing this chaotic stramash of views. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all correct. But you have to admit that certain people have tried to completely ignore or ridicule evidence which doesn't reflect too well on the McCanns. I'm not saying the dogs are proof of anything but to say that they're irrelevant is just as obtuse.

 

Who has been ignoring or ridiculing the evidence found by the dogs? Nobody that I recall.

It's just part and parcel of the body of evidence, for want of a better term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

Who has been ignoring or ridiculing the evidence found by the dogs? Nobody that I recall.

It's just part and parcel of the body of evidence, for want of a better term.

 

I don't remember any of that being mentioned on Crimewatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

 

I don't remember any of that being mentioned on Crimewatch.

That's because it was evidence found by Johnny foreigner plod ergo not done properly. All questions about DNA and blood splatter are therefore null and void and rather inconvenient to the current media circus.

FFS crimewatch was all about slamming doors, wafting curtains, soft questions and PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Anyway, any developments on John Doe?

 

Thought not.

 

Anyone on here donated to the Find Maddie fund?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember any of that being mentioned on Crimewatch.

 

If you honestly wanted them to do a review of all evidence you would have had a 48 hour programme on your hands if not longer.

The appeal was designed to help them progress the case in light of most recent - and to their mind most relevant - developments, not review the whole case and everything in it.

 

So far it seems folk expected to see the McCanns weeping and wailing while begging for forgiveness and then a review of all old evidence. Maybe they haven't seen Crimewatch before. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you honestly wanted them to do a review of all evidence you would have had a 48 hour programme on your hands if not longer.

The appeal was designed to help them progress the case in light of most recent - and to their mind most relevant - developments, not review the whole case and everything in it.

 

So far it seems folk expected to see the McCanns weeping and wailing while begging for forgiveness and then a review of all old evidence. Maybe they haven't seen Crimewatch before. :biggrin:

 

You love the McCanns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The windows had been opened and the shutters raised. Unless having broken into the place through the window the abductor suddenly thinks- "maybe I'll try the door now I've busted my way in! It's open DOH!"

Why would you walk with a sleeping/unconscious/dead child through a holiday resort at 10pm (when lets face it people are either returning home after dinner or heading out on the raz_ and risk being seen/child waking up, all hell breaking loose as parents discover missing child. What then for the abdictors? Paddle for Malta? Board your submarine for paedophile land?

So what we are saying is that we have an abductor with severe learning diffiuclties and a love of the sea who has managed to leave no trace of themselves adn evade justice for 6 years.

OK then

 

Excellent post, showing the "official" version of events as highly questionable.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you honestly wanted them to do a review of all evidence you would have had a 48 hour programme on your hands if not longer.

The appeal was designed to help them progress the case in light of most recent - and to their mind most relevant - developments, not review the whole case and everything in it.

 

So far it seems folk expected to see the McCanns weeping and wailing while begging for forgiveness and then a review of all old evidence. Maybe they haven't seen Crimewatch before. :biggrin:

 

You are right, that was the purpose, but they still looked back at certain other pieces of known evidence and events, including the mention if the Irish family (without mentioning who they thought they saw). Yet they did mention what one of their friends witnessed and who they saw, even though the person she saw was cleared months ago.

 

In reality, other than the two e-fits (which don't look similar), and the description (vague, especially the 20-40 age bracket), there was very little 'new' evidence'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

 

 

You are right, that was the purpose, but they still looked back at certain other pieces of known evidence and events, including the mention if the Irish family (without mentioning who they thought they saw). Yet they did mention what one of their friends witnessed and who they saw, even though the person she saw was cleared months ago.

 

In reality, other than the two e-fits (which don't look similar), and the description (vague, especially the 20-40 age bracket), there was very little 'new' evidence'.

 

It was a very staged programme.

 

Really badly done. Too much hype with very little substance but plenty of enthusiasm by that copper Redwood who must have been hand picked to lead this investigation as he was just spouting nonsense from a scripted format line of questions where he could start all of his answers with the word 'yes '.

 

I didn't expect to see the McCanns wailing but I did expect to see them. God these two never miss an opportunity to get themselves on the telly. A recorded interview AND a live studio chat - makes you sick how much they milk the limelight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GhostHunter

I'm not understanding something...

 

On Sunday detectives released two e-fits of a man matching the description of someone seen by an Irish family, the XXXXX's, at about 10pm, 500 yards from where Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007, at Praia da Luz.

The sighting has taken on new significance after a man seen carrying a child by the McCanns? friend, Jane Tanner, close to their apartment at 9.20pm turned out to be an innocent British holidaymaker, who has been traced.

 

 

 

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-kidnapper-2371929#ixzz2hxiP83mB

Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

 

Surely though, the Irish chap has already made a statement to the police stating who he thought it was after seeing a news clip ?

 

Not obviously apportioning blame here, but I'm just confused...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get your post, Dexter. The Irish family apparently saw a man at about 10pm. His approximate appearance is in the efits. That doesn't mean they know his name. The point of the appeal is to identify that man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

I don't get your post, Dexter. The Irish family apparently saw a man at about 10pm. His approximate appearance is in the efits. That doesn't mean they know his name. The point of the appeal is to identify that man.

 

What Dexter is getting at is that the Irish family said at the time that they thought they knew who it was. They gave a name. But let's just ignore that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is though that they could not very well go on the programme and say " We have a new suspect that we are basing this whole appeal on, who has already been identified carrying a child towards the beach, and the person we wish to question is sitting in the studio with Kirsty- shit- grab him!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Dexter is getting at is that the Irish family said at the time that they thought they knew who it was. They gave a name. But let's just ignore that.

 

They did give a name, but rather than mention it and say they are still investigating it, or that the named man had been eliminated from their enquiries, it was not mentioned at all, just the fact this Irish family saw a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is though that they could not very well go on the programme and say " We have a new suspect that we are basing this whole appeal on, who has already been identified carrying a child towards the beach, and the person we wish to question is sitting in the studio with Kirsty- shit- grab him!"

 

That is true also, and if there is something in it, then perhaps it will prove to be correct not to fully mention the sighting. It is fairly well documented though, who the family thought they saw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GhostHunter

That is true also, and if there is something in it, then perhaps it will prove to be correct not to fully mention the sighting. It is fairly well documented though, who the family thought they saw.

 

The Mirror article though is placing a lot of emphasis on this sighting, and that the police are equally associating the sighting with the e-fit

 

This is why I'm confused...the implication is quite astonishing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

What is the "implication" and what's astonishing about it?

Google is your friend, and Kickback's too in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You love the McCanns.

 

:biggrin:

 

I don't actually, I'm trying not to jump on the 'ew, aren't they weird' bangwagon but I actually don't like them much at all. They're strange.

Just don't think that matters nor is it enough to make someone harm their own kids or mastermind a cover-up under the watchful eye of the world's press and two police forces.

 

Few things would surprise me after the last few years and revelations about Savile and Leveson and some of the really awful high profile cases relating to kids, things I never would have believed seem to be happening for real. But even still, I do think the public thirst for the macabre conspiracy is out-weighing sense in this one. Just can't get on board with idea that they're covering stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, that was the purpose, but they still looked back at certain other pieces of known evidence and events, including the mention if the Irish family (without mentioning who they thought they saw). Yet they did mention what one of their friends witnessed and who they saw, even though the person she saw was cleared months ago.

 

In reality, other than the two e-fits (which don't look similar), and the description (vague, especially the 20-40 age bracket), there was very little 'new' evidence'.

 

They had to explain why their version of events may have changed and illustrate that as per the timeline. All seemed perfectly sensible to me.

Explain the situation in the context of the current key elements of the investigation.

 

If the focus of the investigation changes with more new evidence, you can expect them to change it again.

The purpose isn't to tell a whole detailed story, the purpose is to tell a version of the story with detail and timeline which focuses memory on specific places and times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

 

Awful piece of writing and Dan Hodges is a bawbag who looks like a weirdo.

 

But he's right. You can also tell that he's itching to start throwing shit at the mccanns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

 

 

 

Awful piece of writing and Dan Hodges is a bawbag who looks like a weirdo.

 

But he's right. You can also tell that he's itching to start throwing shit at the mccanns.

 

123 missing.

 

Where are / were the public appeals for these kids ?

 

Why haven't these kids made periodic front story news to keep errrrrr put them in the public eye ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If other children are missing but they receive little attention, is that the fault of the McCanns? Do they choose what the police, newspapers and politicians prioritise? I can't see how. They have received the publicity that everybody in their situation should get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maroon Sailor

 

If other children are missing but they receive little attention, is that the fault of the McCanns? Do they choose what the police, newspapers and politicians prioritise? I can't see how. They have received the publicity that everybody in their situation should get.

 

" Should " being the operative word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If other children are missing but they receive little attention, is that the fault of the McCanns? Do they choose what the police, newspapers and politicians prioritise? I can't see how. They have received the publicity that everybody in their situation should get.

 

I'd wager that most of the 123 missing children aren't from Upper Class backgrounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd wager that most of the 123 missing children aren't from Upper Class backgrounds.

The McCann's are not upperclass.

 

A lot of the kids on that website are in their teens/20s. Some of them will have simply run away from home.

 

I'd say there is a difference between them going missing & a 3 year old being pinched from her bed.

 

Anyway, just because they're not high profile doesn't mean the police don't investigate them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...