Wednesday, 27 July 2016


I was recently asked my thoughts on Ted's (hopefully short) retirement on MMM.  Such is life, I had all sorts of technical problems that night, and my good wishes to Ted were not posted, nor my thoughts on MMM.

As most of we Madeleine 'diehards' know, there are political roots to this cover up, ones that whilst not quite on par with Chilcott, will be right up there, next peg down, when questions are eventually asked. How many 'New' Labour politicians are implicated?  That is, how many, knowing that Madeleine was not missing, continued to assist the McCanns in their 'search'? And does advertising the 'Madeleine Search Fund' count?  I think we are looking at another Inquiry here. 

Bizarrely, I see the appointment of Theresa May as a good thing with regard to the Madeleine McCann cover up.  I am kind of hoping she will remember The Sun's threat to put her on the front page every day unless she granted the McCanns' the review they requested.  And I am pretty sure the Review granted was not the one prepared by Jim Gamble, then Head of Ceop, because the pair went on to have a falling out.  Theresa May is not a friend of the police or the Police Federation. She has probably been the least popular Home Secretary they have ever had. It is quite possible that she may at some point, decide to pick up the file and ask what is going on here. 

Theresa May reminds me of those old 'jolly hockeysticks' 'big' girls at school, who you just knew would get things done. Those wartime heroines who drove the ambulances, organised the workforce and distributed the food.  I'm not knocking them, they are the backbone upon which society is built, and I am hoping that PM May's head on approach to decision making, may see closure for Madeleine and those being victimised in her name. 

I don't write about Gerry and Kate McCann very much these days, because basically they are not putting out anything to rebut.  My gripe has always been with the lies and false information, particularly when it is damaging to others. For Gerry and Kate, I cannot imagine a greater hell than living under their particular cloud, and I have no wish to add to it by going over and over the same old topics.  This has never been about punishment and retribution. The truth will always come out, particularly in this new age of information.  The public are not buying what the government approved newspapers are selling us, within seconds we can see beyond the headlines and everyone (perhaps even terminally dense Lorraine Kelly) knows the abduction story is a load of baloney.   
I have to say, that for many years I have had to curb my inclination to write to a Labour MP (my Dad's advice always), because to be honest, I didn't know who I could trust.  It was hard not to become paranoid after the death of Brenda Leyland, and I know that is a feeling experienced by many McCann commentators.  For me, this Labour party 'coup' has sorted the wheat from the chaff, there is now a good chance that we may get an MP bold enough to ask the Prime Minister why we are spending so many millions on the Madeleine Review and Investigation and why there are no results. 

Operation Grange have now spent over 4 years investigating this case.  The failure of two police forces and several dodgy detective agencies to find any trace of an abductor, should be a clue that he doesn't exist.  At some point, someone is going to have to say 'is there any possibility the parents might be lying?'.  It's a bold move, but his non existence could prove problematic for decades. 

Ps.  Regarding Tony Bennett's ridiculous assertion that my interview with the Sun undermined their [CMoMM] work', I almost choked on my [green] tea, lol.  What you do is not work Bennett, it is of no value to any living being.  You are a vigilante Mr. Bennett (almost called you Mr. Pitchfork), you are a mean spirited, cruel and inhumane man with no other objective than to profit from the misery of others.  You approach your 'work' (lol) from the moral highground as hypocrites always do.  You don't drink, smoke or party and you go to church regularly, therefore you have earned your right to judge others.  But here's a thing Mr. Bennett, that 'right' exists only in your own head, and perhaps the heads of a handful of screwballs who seem to think you are the new Messiah.  In a previous age, you would be chained to a wall in Bedlam, with spectators paying to view. 

Unfortunately, your 'work', (cracks me up every time) is so flawed by bias and prejudice, it is worthless, it is quite possibly, the most boring texts or series of videos anyone is ever likely to read or watch.  I despair at the number of people who may have shown interest in justice for Madeleine, who have been driven away by your publicity seeking antics and dreary documentaries. Kind, decent people do not want to be associated with your sickening form of vigilantism, the 'hater' myth came directly from you Mr. Bennett.  You labelled all of us.  

I have no doubt your ridiculous 'cooey, look at me' stunts have hindered the process of this investigation for years, in fact I think you should be prosecuted for wasting police time, if not perverting the course of justice and misuse of FOI requests.  Your lunatic theory that a man who looks exactly like Gerry is not Gerry, because an entire family are lying, is just plain bonkers and that doesn't even begin to take into account all the innocent people you are accusing of heinous crimes.  Whilst I do of course welcome the advances in law and order and crime and punishment, part of me wishes they retained a bit of that Bedlam wall.      

Many thanks for your comment Dee Coy, what started as a reply turned into a blog :)  Kind wishes.


  1. I will NOT forgive Catherine Mason for the evil she has done.

    She has shown NO contrition.

    So Obvious x

  2. Why don't the movers and shakers take down the mawkish shrine to Brenda Leyland? ITS SICK.

    1. How about the mawkish pictures of toddler Madeleine, and the fairy tale that she is waiting to be rescued? How would you describe collecting money for a dead child, if not sick?

    2. I would describe the campaign as desperate, Ros, and you're right, you're not wrong. Remember where the money went though, that's the place often strangely overlooked.

      At "face value" it looks bad.

      Have a lovely day "of your choosing."


    3. Sorry, sent the reply late Ros, so that would be "lovely evening" of your choosing.

      I've heard the movie Whiplash is worth a watch if you're staying in, have one for me anyways, I'm on hot chocolate these days.

      Cheers and adieu for now.


  3. Ros tweets

    "Cristobell Author

    @FMradioAlex @WillBlackWriter @OwenSmith_MP Except Theresa May is known for her snazzy kitten heels."

    Perhaps you can help me out here Ros - you have made a number of political blogs and seem to have spent hours retweeting political blogs about Corbyn etc.

    Now I know in the past you have indicated that you often have sub texts and tell people to read between the lines to reveal the reality of what you write.

    Can you explain "snazzy kitten heels" please?

    Or is it just another personal comment you make against a person you don't like?

    1. Theresa May made headlines (in the Mail iirc) several years ago, for wearing flamboyant kitten heels, leopard skin I believe. Thus the 'heel' remark was personal to her. Had it been aimed at Boris, for example, it would have made no sense.

      Maybe you should check your facts before picking up that poison pen?

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 July 2016 at 23:25

      thankyou for confirming that there was no sensible point to your tweet - just a comment about appearance/dress sense.

      Several years ago in the Mail - would that be around the time that you were an overweight lumberjack lookalike? Would you like people to comment about your appearance then? (or even now)

      People should be judged on what they say and what they achieve - never on their appearance or dress choices.

    3. It wasn't about her appearance, it was about her SHOES! And I didn't write the article, it was in the Mail. I am merely explaining to you why Owen Smith's 'smash her back on her heels' jibe was personal to Theresa May.

  4. Ros says:

    "For me, this Labour party 'coup' has sorted the wheat from the chaff, there is now a good chance that we may get an MP bold enough to ask the Prime Minister why we are spending so many millions on the Madeleine Review and Investigation and why there are no results."

    Well why don't you write to or tweet Corbyn and ask for his and the Labour Partry's views on the Mccann case and whether they support your venomous campaign against them?

    1. He is kind of busy right now.

      I have refused to believe lies 21:34, which is entirely different to a 'venomous campaign'. I'm not sure anything irritates me quite so much as being told bare faced lies and then being called evil for not believing them! What fecking century are we are?

      The constant whinging and whining of Gerry and Kate McCann does not endear me to them. To be completely honest, as I am in a grumpy mood, Gerry and Kate and indeed their biggest fans, could well be the epitome of every character trait I despise. At the moment the JD Salinger word phoney, phoney, phoney, is screaming in my head. They are sooooo perfect they are practically automatons, they are the kind of people who would totally freak you out if you had them as friends (unlikely, family or neighbours.

      There is nothing venomous in questioning the loss of a child's life. It is what makes us civilised, we don't just let small children vanish. It is those who are refusing to answer questions who are the wicked ones. Those who know what happened to Madeleine and are not saying, are the venomous ones, they are preventing this case from being solved and worse, little Madeleine does not have the dignity of a funeral and a worthy memorial.

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 July 2016 at 00:03

      there is so much wrong in your comment it is not worth replying to.

    3. Therein lies the difference between us 20:27, I think 'wrongs' are worth replying to.

  5. Good blog Cristobell thank you. Its true as you say
    "most of we Madeleine 'diehards' know, there are political roots to this cover up"

    What I think is that whatever the reason for the cover up is it might well be "on par with Chilcott". At least with Chilcott the MSM, ordinary people and MPs were allowed to openly question Blairs motives. Street protests were allowed and by the time the report was issued most people expected Blair to be well and truly savaged for his part. I am not as brave as you to be such a public commentator about the case but I have commented over the years and at times I feared being burnt at the stake such was the attitude created by their supporters. That wasn't created on its own by nasty comments of airheads like Anonymous28 July 2016 at 21:34. There was an organised fear campaign behind this fortunately we are from a free society so it only worked so far and I think the people who organised it never foreseen to how the internet would expand to provide us all with information. They thought tell a few porkies, people won't really believe it there will always be a cloud over the mccanns but sure let it go on for a while, with support of the abduction from the MSM it will die out in a few years.

    I would say that Theresa May hates the McCanns with a passion. I would be surprised if she didn't have a baseball bat in her bedroom that she beat against pictures of them every night before she goes to bed. I agree with your analogy of her "old 'jolly hockeysticks' 'big' girls at school" and unless there was something so big that she just knew she couldn't expose she would have chewed them up and spat them out without a second thought a long time ago. Whatever the secret is the coverup and her association with it has a very great potential to stop her new premiership in its tracks. Why do you think they goaded her, why do you think they made no effort to try and make it look even slightly convincing that an abduction occurred, why do you think they had a brass neck to travel the world selling an abduction story that anybody with half a brain could see through. They knew full well that they had the protection of the British Establishment.

    I like yourself am a great fan of Jeremy Corbyn, I don't think that he would stay silent over such a blatant miscarriage of justice but even he recognises that this is too big for him to openly challenge the government on.

    I'm not a lover of Theresa May although I think she has played her cards right since becoming PM. I think she set up the review/ investigation in an attempt to lift the cloud that has settled over the country because of the McCann case but its proving more difficult than even she imagined but she has plenty of spirit and I'm convinced she will carefully manage the exposure. No labour MP will suddenly ask questions in parliament over it. No MSM no matter how often they hint at will suddenly run a front page exclusive on it, nobody will organise protest marches on the streets seeking the truth because to quote big jack we or the country "cant handle the truth"

    1. Great stuff 15:49, I read it twice!

      I don't think Theresa May has anything to fear from Gerry and Kate, as you say, she could, if she wanted, chew them up and spit them out.

      I fear however, that the Madeleine case is going the same way as the cases against the Aisenbergs and the Ramseys. That is, the police know beyond doubt the parents are involved but do not have the solid evidence to take it to trial.

      I am not sure what the Laws are these days regarding Double Jeopardy, but in any event Gerry and Kate have 9+ years to prepare their defence and the cash to pay the world top criminal lawyers.

      In addition, the crime doesn't stop with the disappearance of Madeleine and criminal charges against 2 people. The web of lies that began that night spreads far and wide, all those who perverted (and continue to pervert) the course of justice must face criminal charges too, including, and perhaps especially, those acting on behalf of the UK Government.

      In a nutshell, two former Prime Ministers and two former Home Secretaries, must state that, despite what the Portuguese were telling them, and with all the Secret Service resources at their fingertips, they still believed Madeleine's disappearance to be a genuine abduction.

      I am not including Cameron or Theresa May there, btw, because they have been throwing money at trying to SOLVE the case for over 5 years. They are not implicated in the actions of the UK government in the summer of 2007. Clarence Mitchell was the epitome of New (right wing)Labour - look how easily he slid over to the tories - and he was squeezing his connections for all they were worth.

    2. 09:34 continues.....

      I believe that once Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour Party (again), there will be a purge of snake oil salesmen from the Labour Party benches. Not in the form of punishment, but through natural de-selection, particularly when the boundary changes begin in 2018.

      The mood of the country is changing, the phonies are being exposed through social media. Being a Labour MP shouldn't be a path to Honours, it should be a path for change. People power not only wants, it is demanding, honest MPs.

      I believe in the next couple of years, we will have MPs ready, willing and able to ask the questions in the HOC, that have been ignored since Blairs' 'lets be pals with the bosses' mentality began.

      But to be honest, I'm not sure it is just the political machinations that are holding this case up. It is actually very frustrating, and indeed depressing, when you realise just how many murderers 'get away with it' because the police lack that vital piece of evidence to get a conviction. The police are human, it must get to them as much as it does to the rest of us, which is why we often see detectives still working on cold cases decades after the event.

      However, those 'who get away with it', rarely if ever, go on to live happy and fulfilling lives. Especially in high profile cases where that cloud that hangs over them is there for all to see.

      Theresa May strikes me as the kind of woman who starts her day with a 'to do list' and doesn't turn in until every box is ticked. She has the kind of tenacity that has got to where she is without even the necessity of an election. She is a newer, less cuddly, prototype of Thatcher.

      I think the McCanns have moved into a newer 'keep your head down' phase of their campaign. They couldn't let Theresa May's Premiership go without comment, they still believe their views are important, but they didn't taunt her. In fact, I doubt they will be taunting her anytime soon, not when you remember what happened last time.

  6. Björn Sundberg29 July 2016 at 19:01

    The reason why Gerry has not commented so much on what has been published in the British MSM about Clement Freud and his obtrusive approach to him and Kate in 2007 may be because he is now busy trying to squeeze all the pieces of his famous jigsaw together, which he so often used to talk about when there was still an on-going Portuguese police investigation. Will he somehow succeed in making Clement Freud fit into his abduction scenario? My guess is that he will at least try.
    The odd thing about the alleged opened window and Gerry’s very odd suggestion about it as a possible red herring, may finally get a logical explanation. Perhaps Mr. Freud tried to mislead the subsequent police investigators by getting them to direct suspicion against someone smoother and leaner than himself, who easily, without being seen by anyone, would be capable of climbing in –and out of small windows with the intention of abusing small children. Moreover, we shall not forget that there has been no explanation to what it was that scared Madeleine the night before she went missing (why-didn’t -you -come -when –I- cried -story). Could that have been Mr Freud starring at his prey through the window, preparing for the following day’s sexual assault?
    I guess Gerry has already figured all that out, but he just keeps it secret from the general public till his personal account of the latest real truth becomes published. Hopefully in serialized form in The Sun, for the whole world to see. Anyway, I’m looking forward to reading it and I’m so curious to see whether his truth differs from Kate’s truth, in her book Madeleine.

    1. I suspect the Clement Freud business was a godsend for the McCanns, it opens a further opportunity to blame others.

      They really have now exhausted every option real or imagined, and about the only thing left is aliens. I watched a documentation about alien abduction once, one women said she got abducted regularly, even when popping down to the shops. She also said they would come into her flat and hide her cigarettes. Have to admit she lost me at the point, I can't really see advanced beings travelling several zillion light years just to hide her fags.

      I digress, although they have reached the end of 9 year run, where all the storylines have dried up and the writers are desperately scratching at dream sequences and alien abductions. Happens to the best of them, Dallas, Dynasty, Absolutely Fabulous. I could go on.

  7. look at bennett's latest research and the quite proper replies that havern got to her hate mail.

  8. I seen the picture of the saintly couple at the races in Musselburgh with David Steel. Those 2 didn't look like they feared arrest anytime soon and they still manage to get themselves photographed with people with influence

    1. "..didn't look like they feared arrest anytime soon..."

      A most salient observation.

    2. It's a safe home in politics.

  9. Ros

    Hope you are keeping well.

    Bennett asked which statements of his regarding the Smith's, are flawed.

    I can start the ball rolling. For years Bennett chased down Martin Smith and his "dubious" golf company.

    Reams and reams of "investigation" into "skulduggery" by the "devious" Smith, only to find it was a different Smith and there was no "skulduggery".

    Bennett believed Aoife Smith was an adult.Reams and reams of dross about this, only to be informed she was 12 years old.

    Bennett and his disciples are nutters living in a fantasy world but it gives the rest of us a laugh, a bit like Owen Smith standing to lead the Labour party.

    I know Bennett lives in Harlow but it really should be Barking.

    1. LOL JJ, and what a great beginning!

      Did he ever give any apologies or corrections to all his massive fails over the years? Or is he still hounding and stalking the wrong family of witnesses?

      Perfect analogy Bennett and Owen Smith, its really getting cringey now, watching the MSM trying to pretend Owen Smith is in the lead - they really are digging their own graves with all these lies. Why buy a grubby newspaper promoting grubby causes.

      I have to say I have stumbled on some amazing writers while trying to do my bit on social media. To be honest, I am awe of them, and feeling a little out of my depth. My stuff seems kinda silly, by comparison. (in a 'low' as you tell, lol).

      I am totally smitten by John McDonnell, who I want to run away with (he can even bring his granddad cardies), but he has now paled since I discovered Paul Mason! But I don't think I could do anything other than say 'aw shucks' to him, before losing the power of speech. I am in awe!

      I'm totally out of love with the young Owen Jones, who I wanted to take home and cuddle, he was a shining beacon at the leadership rallies last year, so why such a sudden change of heart?

      But back to Bonkers Bennett, it really is much preferable to be an occasional onlooker. The few who remain have pretty much revealed themselves as right wing fascist vigilantes beyond any reasonable doubt, (no wonder they stay anonymous)and their rantings are of little interest, apart from, as you say, the odd laugh.

      And yeh, it really should be Barking!

  10. He's not terribly good with identities, is he? The Bureau invented a forum poster called "Justice for Maddie (from Norbury" and we allowed her to post on our occasional comments issues.

    Justice was a quintessential Forum Moron, alternating between weeping for the lost child, libelling the parents and complaining about the smell of urine around the lock-up garages outside her little Norbury maisonette. And, naturally, as a Forum Moron she would submit comments to the Bureau saying how very clever Mr Bennett was and how he was the only person who understood the case and would bring justice for Maddie (from Rothley).

    Needless to say all the comments from everyone were pure fiction. Well, it should be needless to say it but - after a glowing tribute from the unfortunate M/S Norbury to Mr Bennett's detective skills appeared in another comments issue - Bennett publicly replied to her from one of his pits, thanking her for the compliment and appreciating her wisdom. Other posters hummed and hawed in fear of getting banned for lese-majesty and then someone plucked up the courage to tell him that she was a jovial invention, not a member of his fan club. His response did not disappoint.

    So, another proof that the man genuinely, literally, cannot tell truth from fiction, just like the McCanns he so resembles in so many ways.

    It now appears that our favourite poster did not, as was rumoured, die under the wheels of a Croydon-bound tram en route to the Fairfield Halls Bowie memorial concert, after her shopping trolley got trapped in the rails. She is, admittedly, some three feet shorter than she was but remains cheerful. We shall have another comments page soon to welcome her back.

    1. "Needless to say all the comments from everyone were pure fiction."

      Here's one that isn't.

      From your own Bureau post of 28 July:

      "we suggest that it's perfectly clear what that last line of investigation is: the identity of Smithman and all that goes along with it."

      Perfectly clear because Operation Grange had discovered that Jane Tanner's evidence "had never existed" - the person she claimed to have seen "was actually a parent with a child, not an abductor".


      Maybe you should give some thought to the comment of Anonymous above (08.14). Fewer words - keener insight.

    2. Sorry, don't reply to advice from anonymous trolls scared to back their words with their true identity.

    3. You replied.

  11. More of this?
    Oh yes please!

  12. I don't think I should use Ros's - hi, how are you? - site as a message board but yes, M/S Justice worked her magic once more and triggered much comment in today's Bureau. She's threatening to develop a life of her own.

  13. I see bennett has published his latest 50 reasons to raise a gofundme appeal to save his sorry ass from jail.

    1. Yes and he is trying to hide behind:

      "Published by The Madeleine McCann Research Group - 1 August 2016"

      I do hope his fellow researchers realise that they are putting themselves at risk and could all end up in Court with bennett.

      What a coward and wimp he is.

    2. Marina Guiltisfid4 August 2016 at 19:47

      Coward and wimp, how dare you? The man's a hunky, seething, Godly hotbed of wisdom, I'll have you know. He's got an inscribed wooden ruler and all.

  14. Hektor van Bohner3 August 2016 at 09:28

    Mr Blacksmith you rock!

  15. Hi Hektor you are stealing my words Lol but he really does rock doesn't he

  16. TB is a curiosity. It took me some time to see through his game and I think that is what happens with many new posters. When real insights start to be made TB inevitably pours cold water over them and if the poster robustly responds the mods ban them or disable their account.

    I think that Smithman (whoever he is!) is probably central to understanding what happened that fateful week. This could well be why TB is hellbent on discrediting him. Smithman I think is probably also central to understanding what went wrong that fateful week.

    My money has long been on a pre-planned media hoax which went wrong and/or was sabotaged at the last minute. This would at least partly explain the high level cover-up as if the hoax was exposed it would be clear, imo, that Murdoch with his high level connections was in it right up to his neck.

    I think 'the abduction' was supposed to have happened at around 9.15pm - the time of the Gerry/Jez Wilkins encounter. For some reason (I have several ideas around this)the 9.15pm faked abduction did not take place. This would account for early eye-witness reports of a 'commotion' well before 10pm - as early as 9.20pm - and also the unjemmied shutters.

    With the pre-planned hoax in disarray, the McCanns and Tapas would then have run around like headless chickens and in sheer desperation I think hatched Tannerman in the early hours of 4th May.

    I suspect that Tannerman was hatched after Matt, in the company of OC resort manager, woke up Jez Wilkins and told him that Gerry had seen him at around 9.15pm on Thursday evening. This obviously places Jez as a key eyewitness as well as - theoretically - 'the abductor'.

    Whatever Jez' role in all this, I refuse to believe it was a coincidence that Gerry allegedly bumped into a TV crime documentary maker and his journalist wife who used to work on Crimewatch at such a crucial time and in such a crucial place. And that Jez and his wife peacefully slumbered and didn't bother to join the searches while this massive news story broke around them. Jez and Bridget's account of that evening is simply not plausible, imo.

    I think that Gerry, when the faked 9.15pm 'abduction' went awry, in sheer desperation and with very little time to think straight, simulated an abduction - probably with Jane Tanner's child. I doubt he was thinking straight (the police noted how both Kate and Gerry were wailing like arabs in prayer) and probably wasn't expecting to be seen at close quarters by a family of nine as he scuttled along in a last-minute panic.

  17. When TM realized Gerry had been seen by a family of nine and after TM had placed Jez at such a crucial place at such a crucial time (whether or not he was actually there of course) TM hatched Tannerman. It is significant, imo, that Jez will not support Tannerman and he thinks it highly unlikely that Tannerman could have passed by him.

    Seeing as apart from the above, no-one else reported seeing any signs of a potential abduction this leaves us with three potential abductors. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually were the abductors, what matters is that they help to frame a possible storyline and also timeline.

    1. Jane Tanner's Tanner-man at 9.15pm. Only seen by Jane and no-one else. Not even Jez Wilkins who thinks it highly unlikely that he could have passed by without him seeing him. Tannerman is implausible, as noted by police and also Luz locals who know the street where he was allegedly seen and think it unlikely Tanner could have spotted him from where she was standing.
    2. Theoretically Jez Wilkins as he was outside the apartment with a potential get-away vehicle for an abduction - a pram - within the time-frame given by TM. Theoretically, once GM went back to dinner, Jez could have popped in and done a bit of abducting. Not for a second suggesting this happened but simply that he is a key eye-witness and would need to be ruled out as potentially involved in some way given the key place and timing.
    3. Smithman. Seen by a family of nine at 10pm heading to the beach in a non-direct way presumably to use a quieter road? I think this was probably Gerry carrying out a faked abduction in utter desperation when the 9.15pm slot was bungled. The curiosity with Smithman is why the Smiths did not approach police immediately. Possible reasons: they thought 'the abduction' was at 9.15pm and therefore couldn't possibly be the man they saw. They had some kind of 'insider info' (as they co-owned a flat in Luz) and were motivated to come forward after Robert Murat was made arguido. It could be that they knew Murat better than they claimed or it could be that they knew people who knew Murat locally who were adamant he didn't do it. Another possibility is that there were people locally who thought that Gerry was behind Madeleine's disappearance. It was not until Murat was made arguido that the Smiths felt they could dare report their sighting, knowing, I would imagine, that their sighting might incriminate one (and indeed maybe more than one) of TM.

    If Smithman was irrelevant to what happened then why would TB feel such a compulsive need to discredit the sighting? And I for one do not think it was a coincidence that on the Crimewatch programme and reconstruction (in 2013?) Gerry and Kate - looking utterly horrified in Kate's case and sneering in Gerry's case - are shown sitting under a huge efit of a man with an uncanny resemblance to Gerry McCann. I think some of the Crimewatch crew were playing the gruesome twosome at their own game here. And were enjoying watching them squirm, knowing that the pair thought they were cleverer than everyone else.