Were the Police truthful with the BBC?

Before any Crimewatch is made the BBC's legal department meet with the Police force's legal department to ensure that the BBC does not break the law or violate their charter in what they show.

The first requirement is a guarantee that what the BBC is told by the Police  is to the best of the Polices knowledge factual and true.  This is endorsed by the BBC Charter, ACPO and Ofcom.

Watch as the BBC presenter stresses the truth of what we are seeing.

So we see Madeleine was alive at 2.30pm on Thursday 3rd May beside the pool and that a man came forward to substantiate JT's sighting. It just happens that he was an innocent holiday maker walking home from the creche.

Many believe the Police invented creche man, to move the investigation on, nothing is further from the truth.

It would not be legal to do this, the BBC lawyers would never sanction it (especially after Savile) and OG could be accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The world and his wife had been told the Macs weren't aguidos or suspects over and over, so why did DCI Redwood stress the fact, why did he say anything at all?  Normally an officer adds "not at this time" or something similar.
Why didn't DCI Redwood? because it is a drip feed to exonerate the Macs in the eyes of the British public before closing the investigation.

There is silence because DCI Redwood cocked up in a big way and nobody expected David Cameron to still be PM or knows what to do about the small but vocal minority who do not believe the tale being spun but he has ensured that nobody will stand in a court of law accused of anything
Many believe the Police can lie and deceive and if so they should have chosen another broadcaster other than the BBC governed by Royal Charter.

The BBC think they are a law unto themselves, they broadcast lies to this very day and don't even think about it.

Interesting JJ - I assume you know this for sure or is it your opinion?

If you are correct, then everything that Redwood produced for the Crimewatch programme was absolutely correct as well, including crecheman.

If Grange have perverted the course of justice they could be in trouble, or Redwood could.

Well it looks as if we should all go home then because the McCanns are innocent.

Not sure about this but here is what is in one case studies in the Police/Crimewatch PDF's I've linked to before: http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_4.2.pdf

• Some of the suspects were surreptitiously made aware that the robbery would be
featured on Crimewatch on a specific day.
• Covert techniques were used alongside the programme to ensure that the suspects
were observed and monitored prior, during and after the programme was aired to
capture any incriminating evidence.
• Crimewatch was fully aware of the SIO’s strategy in relation to the suspects,
therefore, all aspects of the reconstruction and questions to the SIO were designed
to elicit a response from the suspects.

It is a fine line but the above bold word would suggest a misrepresentation of the truth?

Whatever, the biggest issue with Crechman man as it was presented on Crimewatch that made it sound like a lie was the dad still having the same clothes after six years (a bit of a stretch, but possible) and the biggie..his daughters PJ's and blanket. No chance with that one IMO.

Who knows maybe he really does exist. Either way, he is eliminated from the investigation.

I post - again - that immediately after the BBC Crimewatch emission, a Dutch renowned criminal investigator [Peter R. de Vries, who susses out Joran van der Sloot] said that he thought it was a fishing operation. In the sense that "all" players were monitored to see and hear whom they contacted and what they were saying ... Clever IMO.

Châtelaine wrote:I post - again - that immediately after the BBC Crimewatch emission, a Dutch renowned criminal investigator [Peter R. de Vries, who susses out Joran van der Sloot] said that he thought it was a fishing operation. In the sense that "all" players were monitored to see and hear whom they contacted and what they were saying ... Clever IMO.

Yes Châtelaine, that would agree with what was done in the case studies in the link I posted above.

It's strange that on the Find Madeleine site the Mccanns have still got Tannerman as a suspect. if I were Crechdad I would ask them to take it down.

So would I.
I'd have thought OG would have advised them to take it down
Actually, the parents should have taken it down straight after he was "found"
IMO

Mo wrote:It's strange that on the Find Madeleine site the Mccanns have still got Tannerman as a suspect.  if I were Crechdad I would ask them to take it down.

Really...That is very interesting whatever you think about Tannerman/Crechdad.

Any psychologists here? I'd love to know, given the scenario, why the McCanns would leave that up? How "active" is the site now I wonder. Might be that no one maintains it any more?

I don't like giving that site clicks, but might take a look later.

There doesn't appear to be anything more recent there since an anniversary update in May.

as you will see on the 21st century thread about the migration story, the BBC is not the most reliable or impartial of broadcasters, its job is to influence public perception of certain events.

They said themselves, on air for everyone to hear, that the "facts can be changed for anyone."
And was an apology ever issued to Dr Amaral for claiming that he said "F*** the McCanns"?

So I got round to having a look at the Find Madeleine website and look at what they write:

Based or[sic] 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.

May represent a guest? No, OG had pictures of the man and clothes and whether you think he is a fabrication or not OG on Crimewatch "eliminated" him.

The McCanns obviously don't like this at all.

They certainly don't like it, TTWO.

And they certainly don't like Operation Grange either.

(no matter what they say on the contrary)

They're not listening to OG either then...

I don't think they're listening to the Murder Investigation Team, when they're desperately trying to portray and convince, that Madeleine is still alive.