Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

No

[henryd]

We are looking for the person that took the child, as the case presented in Crime watch. We have no other reliable info.

Trouble is Chris,after all this time is there any reliable info other than the child went/still is missing 

[chrisgixer]

We are looking for the person that took the child, as the case presented in Crime watch. We have no other reliable info.

Trouble is Chris,after all this time is there any reliable info other than the child went/still is missing 

It doesn't matter as far as this thread goes, as the case was presented yesterday, and involves the decisions the UK police are making very recently.

The time issues are indeed difficult for the UK detectives though. But its those same detectives that presented the case on time watch. And that's what I'm asking you all to consider.

NOT what you may have heard prior to.

[chrisgixer]

Poll added

[2boxerdogs]

I did see the programme ,like the police & the dozens of crime analysts I was also watching the body language of people involved ,has it not made anybody wonder why this "new evidence" has suddenly appeared.. A man holding a child  is that unusual ? The whole incident beggars belief , give somebody enough rope springs to mind.

[chrisgixer]

I did see the programme ,like the police & the dozens of crime analysts I was also watching the body language of people involved ,has it not made anybody wonder why this "new evidence" has suddenly appeared.. A man holding a child  is that unusual ? The whole incident beggars belief , give somebody enough rope springs to mind.

Why does it begger belief?

Did you not ask why the the child carrier was walking towards the crèche, not away from it, having just picked the child up from the crèche? Which he was walking towards...?

[TheBoy]

Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?

Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!

Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.


GO WATCH IT!

Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)

[chrisgixer]

Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?

Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!

Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.


GO WATCH IT!

Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)

Precisely my point. You can't say that, if you haven't seen it. Can you!

[TheBoy]

Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?

Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!

Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.


GO WATCH IT!

Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)

Precisely my point. You can't say that, if you haven't seen it. Can you!

I am aware of the contents of the programme. I don't need to sit through those idiots getting over excited over it.  And I repeat, there isn't really anything genuinely new, is there?

[chrisgixer]

Ok, but what about the facts as discussed in the programme?

Seems to me, your all sitting in judge and jury on the parents, WITHOUT SEEING THE PROGRAMME which contains the new info!

Nobody saw the programme so the whole discussion is pointless.


GO WATCH IT!

Indeed, I didn't watch that one-sided, over hyped piece of typical BBC reporting. Any "new" facts aren't actually "new". Its just a way to sensationalise, its what BBC does (along with most of the UK printed media)

Precisely my point. You can't say that, if you haven't seen it. Can you!

I am aware of the contents of the programme. I don't need to sit through those idiots getting over excited over it.  And I repeat, there isn't really anything genuinely new, is there?

If you'd seen it you would know. You don't need to watch the whole prog.

Your not in a position to answer my questions raised from the programme, until you have watched the programme. Jeez

[chrisgixer]

Trouble is, now. Its only a minor point anyway. You need to have seen it.

[MR MISTER]

Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.

[chrisgixer]

Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.

I have to say I'm surprised at the responses here. A trial of the parents my media and conjecture.





THE PARENTS DIDNT TAKE THE CHILD! Ffs!

[Vamps]

Despite everyone's conjecture, and an apparent dislike of the parents, we are talking about a little girl who may well have met a horrible death here.

I have to say I'm surprised at the responses here. A trial of the parents my media and conjecture.





THE PARENTS DIDNT TAKE THE CHILD! Ffs!

But they left her alone for someone else to do so.......................

[TheBoy]

THE PARENTS DIDNT TAKE THE CHILD! Ffs!

No. Or at least maybe no . BUT they are significantly responsible for it.

[05omegav6]

Have just watched it, and it quite clearly shows the man and child walking away from the apartment, yet when he came forward he was heading back from the creche, which is most contradictory

The next sighting being 45 minutes later a couple of blocks away,  yet still no nearer the creche... snatched child, walked around for a bit to see if challenged, then vanished

The other thing that doesn't quite fit is when Matt Oldfield returns to the table and says 'Everything's ok'... first impression might have looked that way, but he wouldn't have known whether the window or shutter was closed or open beforehand he might have simply stuck his head into the apartment, heard toddler sleeping noises, shut the door and gone to check on his kids, and not actually seen the children. I doubt that three sleeping children would make much more noise than two...

Obviously he'd swear until blue (as would anyone in his shoes imho) that all three kids were there, that the door was ajar, the shutter, window and curtains were all closed and bolted, but only he knows what he did or didn't see or do that night.

Directly involved or not, the McCanns really don't interview well