Redwood's Role - And the 'Theory of the Developing Narrative'

missmar1 wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:
Are these the three burglars they interviewed? I thought nothing was gained from them?

Correct.  They are the very ones: the schizophrenic, the van-driver and the homeless teenager.  All three photographed hiding their faces, all three interviewed, and as far as we know nothing of note gained.  But in the new narrative, that doesn't matter.  What matters are the photographs and the fact that all 3 are now Arguidos - and will remain so until the case is solved or shelved.  Many in the UK believe that they were arrested (thanks to BHH's famous "arrests coming soon" interview + associated "prime suspects" headlines).  

Coming on the back of the high-profile digs, the images and their association have successfully implanted the new narrative in the UK public's unconscious.  Remember that few look at the detail of the articles, never mind forums such as this.  The photos, the headlines and the news are all that count.  

Credit to Amaral who called it early.  It's frustrating for us.  Imagine what it must be like for him...!  

I am sorry but I cant see any way in which this can be pinned on a burglary gone wrong -  are we to believe Madeleine had woken up and disturbed a burglar who supposedly then decided to kill her and go to the kitchen/cupboards  to look for cleaning agents with the purpose of cleaning away the evidence  ? 

Due to the time checks , there is no way a burglar would have had the time to kill a child and clean up behind him    -  did he bring cleaning agents and cloth with him then  or did he look around to see what he could use to clean up with ?   Did he also take the cleaning materials he must have used in the apartment with him while he was also carrying Madeleine  ? 

 Why would a burglar stop his burglary to kill a child,  clean up leaving no evidence,  take the cleaning materials he used but no booty that he supposedly came for and then risk being seen carrying a dead child from the apartment ?

How on earth the above possibilty could be spun is beyond me and most peoples thinking I would imagine.

That one will never work !   Or will it ?

All my opinion only.

Justformaddie wrote:

missmar1 wrote:
I am sorry but I cant see any way in which this can be pinned on a burglary gone wrong -  are we to believe Madeleine had woken up and disturbed a burglar who supposedly then decided to kill her and go to the kitchen/cupboards  to look for cleaning agents with the purpose of cleaning away the evidence  ? 

Due to the time checks , there is no way a burglar would have had the time to kill a child and clean up behind him    -  did he bring cleaning agents and cloth with him then  or did he look around to see what he could use to clean up with ?   Did he also take the cleaning materials he must have used in the apartment with him while he was also carrying Madeleine  ? 

 Why would a burglar stop his burglary to kill a child,  clean up leaving no evidence,  take the cleaning materials he used but no booty that he supposedly came for and then risk being seen carrying a dead child from the apartment ?

How on earth the above possibilty could be spun is beyond me and most peoples thinking I would imagine.

That one will never work !   Or will it ?

All my opinion only.

Certainly won't work for me!

mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.

Tony Bennett wrote:

mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.

Disagree, mysterion.

This is far more likely IMO:

1. The actual 'final report' will be secret, as was said at the outset, and later confirmed via the answer to a Freedom of Information Act request (mine).

2. A summary will be released via a written statement put out either by the Head of the Met (or their Media Office) or the Home Secretary (or her Media Office).

3. This summary will be released on the type of news day where it's a good opportunity to 'bury bad news'.

4. The media won't question the summary and the public won't be able to question it either.

5. I believe the above will happen between now and February next year.

6. Those behind this 'Final Narrative' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann will hope that this will conclude 'The Madeleine McCann Affair'  - forever. 

Tony Bennett wrote:

mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.

Disagree, mysterion.

This is far more likely IMO:

1. The actual 'final report' will be secret, as was said at the outset, and later confirmed via the answer to a Freedom of Information Act request (mine).

2. A summary will be released via a written statement put out either by the Head of the Met (or their Media Office) or the Home Secretary (or her Media Office).

3. This summary will be released on the type of news day where it's a good opportunity to 'bury bad news'.

4. The media won't question the summary and the public won't be able to question it either.

5. I believe the above will happen between now and February next year.

6. Those behind this 'Final Narrative' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann will hope that this will conclude 'The Madeleine McCann Affair'  - forever. 

Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve.  Why is SY promoting narratives at all?  The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time.  Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources.  I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity.  The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all.  I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely.  If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone.  If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

missmar1 wrote:

Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve.  Why is SY promoting narratives at all?  The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time.  Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources.  I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity.  The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all.  I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely.  If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone.  If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

I really hope SY is doing its job  - to find out what happened to a little girl who, imo, was not special or any different to any other child who goes missing under suspicious circumstances.....but it seems SY are treating this case as a "Special" one .

 WHY a special case  ?   Madeleine's parents are not special people   ? Imo,  they acted like a selfish pair who preferred to leave their kids all alone while they went off for a good time with their friends.   For that selfish act, they have received special kid glove treatment.  

WHY are the Mccann's fawned over ?   They conduct tv and magazine interviews,  but they are not famous - they are infamous for leaving their children all alone and one disappeared.

So why all the fussing and fawning over these people who left their children  ?  Gerry Mccann even stated  " The situation Madeleine found herself in "  

Any parent would know a 3 year old cannot choose their "situation"   imo, it was a situation her parents actions put her in and not the other way around, and how have they been treated for their actions ?    The Mccann's have been treated like mini celebs by the UK media and the likes of Lorraine Kelly....even SY seem to show the utmost respect when dealing with the Mccann's .

All my opinion only.

missmar1 wrote:

Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve.  Why is SY promoting narratives at all?  The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time.  Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources.  I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity.  The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all.  I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely.  If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone.  If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

I really hope SY is doing its job  - to find out what happened to a little girl who, imo, was not special or any different to any other child who goes missing under suspicious circumstances.....but it seems SY are treating this case as a "Special" one .

 WHY a special case  ?   Madeleine's parents are not special people   ? Imo,  they acted like a selfish pair who preferred to leave their kids all alone while they went off for a good time with their friends.   For that selfish act, they have received special kid glove treatment.  

WHY are the Mccann's fawned over ?   They conduct tv and magazine interviews,  but they are not famous - they are infamous for leaving their children all alone and one disappeared.

So why all the fussing and fawning over these people who left their children  ?  Gerry Mccann even stated  " The situation Madeleine found herself in "  

Any parent would know a 3 year old cannot choose their "situation"   imo, it was a situation her parents actions put her in and not the other way around, and how have they been treated for their actions ?    The Mccann's have been treated like mini celebs by the UK media and the likes of Lorraine Kelly....even SY seem to show the utmost respect when dealing with the Mcanns. 

Eta,  imo, there is something very very wrong with this case - yes, I can understand the sympathy shown to the Mccann's when it first happened because their daughter had gone missing, but , with the release of the files and their continued odd behaviour ..ie,  the mother not answering police questions , rubbishing the dogs, statements discrepancies etc....they, and all their holiday pals, need to be re-interviewed at the very least .

All my opinion only.

Varriott wrote:

missmar1 wrote:

Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve.  Why is SY promoting narratives at all?  The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time.  Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources.  I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity.  The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all.  I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely.  If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone.  If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

I really hope SY is doing its job  - to find out what happened to a little girl who, imo, was not special or any different to any other child who goes missing under suspicious circumstances.....but it seems SY are treating this case as a "Special" one .

 WHY a special case  ?   Madeleine's parents are not special people   ? Imo,  they acted like a selfish pair who preferred to leave their kids all alone while they went off for a good time with their friends.   For that selfish act, they have received special kid glove treatment.  

WHY are the Mccann's fawned over ?   They conduct tv and magazine interviews,  but they are not famous - they are infamous for leaving their children all alone and one disappeared.

So why all the fussing and fawning over these people who left their children  ?  Gerry Mccann even stated  " The situation Madeleine found herself in "  

Any parent would know a 3 year old cannot choose their "situation"   imo, it was a situation her parents actions put her in and not the other way around, and how have they been treated for their actions ?    The Mccann's have been treated like mini celebs by the UK media and the likes of Lorraine Kelly....even SY seem to show the utmost respect when dealing with the Mcanns. 

Eta,  imo, there is something very very wrong with this case - yes, I can understand the sympathy shown to the Mccann's when it first happened because their daughter had gone missing, but , with the release of the files and their continued odd behaviour ..ie,  the mother not answering police questions , rubbishing the dogs, statements discrepancies etc....they, and all their holiday pals, need to be re-interviewed at the very least .

All my opinion only.

What makes this a special case?  I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again.  That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent.  And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty.  All that was special here is that it happened abroad.  Therefore the parents must be innocent.  Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it.  SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!!  This is all a case study in xenophobia.

Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case?  I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again.  That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent.  And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty.  All that was special here is that it happened abroad.  Therefore the parents must be innocent.  Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it.  SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!!  This is all a case study in xenophobia.

canada12 wrote:

Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case?  I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again.  That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent.  And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty.  All that was special here is that it happened abroad.  Therefore the parents must be innocent.  Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it.  SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!!  This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

canada12 wrote:

Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case?  I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again.  That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent.  And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty.  All that was special here is that it happened abroad.  Therefore the parents must be innocent.  Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it.  SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!!  This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

Newintown wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case?  I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again.  That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent.  And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty.  All that was special here is that it happened abroad.  Therefore the parents must be innocent.  Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it.  SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!!  This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

That's an excellent summing up of all that has gone on for the past 7 years, although don't forget the highly paid lawyers, consultants, PR agencies, people who have their own morning TV programmes and don't ask the McCanns any awkward questions, have all helped the McCanns along the way to fame and fortune, and have all forgotten about the REAL VICTIM, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN.

Tony Bennett wrote:

mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.

Disagree, mysterion.

This is far more likely IMO:

1. The actual 'final report' will be secret, as was said at the outset, and later confirmed via the answer to a Freedom of Information Act request (mine).

2. A summary will be released via a written statement put out either by the Head of the Met (or their Media Office) or the Home Secretary (or her Media Office).

3. This summary will be released on the type of news day where it's a good opportunity to 'bury bad news'.

4. The media won't question the summary and the public won't be able to question it either.

5. I believe the above will happen between now and February next year.

6. Those behind this 'Final Narrative' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann will hope that this will conclude 'The Madeleine McCann Affair'  - forever. 

missmar1 wrote:

I know the British like to think they are superior to others - but imo, this case has all the hallmarks of good PR and plenty of brain washing to people who do not delve too deeply into the whys and hows. - it reminds me of the play called The Crucible by Arthur Miller,  it was about witchcraft in the 16 th century but my point about the play is how the witchmaster General was able to create mass hysteria  - it spread like wildfire......

Okeydokey wrote:Think you're probably right Tony.  Equally they might time something for the election - I mean soon after.

Tony Bennett wrote:

mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.

Disagree, mysterion.

This is far more likely IMO:

1. The actual 'final report' will be secret, as was said at the outset, and later confirmed via the answer to a Freedom of Information Act request (mine).

2. A summary will be released via a written statement put out either by the Head of the Met (or their Media Office) or the Home Secretary (or her Media Office).

3. This summary will be released on the type of news day where it's a good opportunity to 'bury bad news'.

4. The media won't question the summary and the public won't be able to question it either.

5. I believe the above will happen between now and February next year.

6. Those behind this 'Final Narrative' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann will hope that this will conclude 'The Madeleine McCann Affair'  - forever. 

Baldrick wrote:

missmar1 wrote:

Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve.  Why is SY promoting narratives at all?  The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time.  Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources.  I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity.  The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all.  I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely.  If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone.  If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

I really hope SY is doing its job  - to find out what happened to a little girl who, imo, was not special or any different to any other child who goes missing under suspicious circumstances.....but it seems SY are treating this case as a "Special" one .

 WHY a special case  ?   Madeleine's parents are not special people   ? Imo,  they acted like a selfish pair who preferred to leave their kids all alone while they went off for a good time with their friends.   For that selfish act, they have received special kid glove treatment.  

WHY are the Mccann's fawned over ?   They conduct tv and magazine interviews,  but they are not famous - they are infamous for leaving their children all alone and one disappeared.

So why all the fussing and fawning over these people who left their children  ?  Gerry Mccann even stated  " The situation Madeleine found herself in "  

Any parent would know a 3 year old cannot choose their "situation"   imo, it was a situation her parents actions put her in and not the other way around, and how have they been treated for their actions ?    The Mccann's have been treated like mini celebs by the UK media and the likes of Lorraine Kelly....even SY seem to show the utmost respect when dealing with the Mccann's .

All my opinion only.

No I don't believe the Mccanns are special people. That is why I don't believe the pink one was sent to help them. IMO he was sent to make sure no other peoples names were dropped by the Maccs and friends in the return for help.