The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by tasprin on 07.08.14 12:32

Those E.Fits Again
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
6 August 2014

Its all very shocking, sickening that the McCanns would have created, E.Fits of a suspect, a suspect in the disappearance of their missing daughter, described by the Metropolitan Police, as vitally significant to their investigation - yet kept them undisclosed from the public for FIVE YEARS.Five years when young Madeleine if alive could quite possibly have been found, if only these E.Fits had been disclosed.

But there is something not quite right about the whole story of the E.Fits.

Yes the McCanns kept them to themselves for five years, that is did not reveal them to the public, and by so doing without question they failed Madeleine and damaged any search for her. It's incomprehensible for any decent person to even begin to try and understand why the parents of a missing child would do this to the child especially when they have stated that they believed her to have been taken by paedophiles.

There were two sightings on the night Madeleine was reported as missing. The first by Jane Tanner a member of the McCann holiday group. A sighting which the Portuguese Police knew instantly was not credible, knew instantly that Tanner was lying. A sighting which the McCann private detectives said also was not credible! The second sighting by the Smith family, independent witnesses, a family who own a property in Praia da Luz and were holidaying there at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

The McCanns, despite knowing of the Smith family sighting as early as 2007, and despite being advised by their private detectives that Tanner's sighting was not credible (this back in 2008)did not promote the Smith sighting. They gave it a mention in their documentary, but linking it to the Tanner sighting as being one and same person, in so doing misleading the viewing public. But gave no mention that they had in their possession E.Fits.

The Smith sighting was given a mention in Kate McCanns account of the truth, but again, she did not mention that they had in their possession the E.Fits. McCanns quite clearly had no intention of making these E.Fits public of promoting this sighting in the way they did the sighting by their buddy Tanner, the sighting which was all but ruled out by the Portuguese Police and their own private detectives.

Enter, DCI Andy Redwood. He obtains copies of these E.Fits in 2011.

He does not disclose them until Crimewatch aired in the UK on 14th October 2013.

Redwood rolls out at this time his 'Revelation Moment' Seems he, the Metropolitan Police too don't find Jane Tanner's sighting to be credible, Crimewatch the platform for its dismissal. According to Redwood Jane Tanner did not see a man carrying off Madeleine, she saw a man carrying home his little daughter from the creche, a little girl who was wearing pyjamas only, a little girl whose dad didn't bother wrapping the child in a blanket from the cold night air. A British dad on holiday with his family. The name of this dad, like the E.Fits of Smithman was not to be disclosed publicly!

But let us think about it. The McCanns NEVER at any time gave the Smith sighting any real credence. The fact that the kept undisclosed from the public the E.Fits for five years, tells us they were not interested in the slightest in this sighting, which in itself is quite extraordinary. A family of independent witnesses see a man carrying a child matching physically their daughter's description, the child dressed only in pyjamas as their daughter was, at around the time of night when Kate McCann supposedly discovered her daughter to be missing - and they do not disclose the E.Fits?

Their best chance as Gerry McCann said, five years after the E.Fits were put together, of finding Madeleine.

So why wait five years if this was Madeleine's best chance of being found?

Added to which, DCI Redwood kept them a secret too from 2011 until October 2013?

Would it be naive of us to believe that Redwood only learned of the Smith sighting after the commencement of Scotland Yard's involvement in this case?

Of course it would.

Would it be naive of us to believe that DCI Redwood only became aware of the E.Fits after Scotland Yard's involvement in the case?

Probably!

There is of course the tiniest of possibilities that the Met Investigation only became aware after officers from Operation Grange questioned the Smith family and they in turn informed the Met Officers that the McCann private detectives had visited with them, and that they had co-operated with them giving descriptions of the man they had seen so that the E.Fits could be produced.

The Met Officers did interview the Smith family as soon as they began their investigation? Well one would like to think so.
What I am struggling to understand is this.

Redwood, the Met knew that the Tanner sighting was a nonsense, a tale invented, an attempt to beef up the McCann abduction story. We have heard many times that Redwood is playing the long game (it has been well over three years how much darn well longer?) that he has the McCanns and their buddies in his sights. Much as I would like to believe this, and at times, I go there, momentarily, thinking, perhaps he has – but for Redwood to be doing that – he would not be doing ALL of the other things which he has been – and the timing of the release of any information by the Metropolitan Police, ALWAYS at a time favourable to McCanns (not their search for Madeleine, but coinciding at all times with matters pertaining to the legal action they raised against Dr Amaral) has to be considered as suspicious. The timing of the release of the E.Fits/Crimewatch one such incidence. (and no prizes for guessing when he will come out with his next round of revelations!)

Those E.Fits should have been out there IMMEDIATELY but Redwood held them back until Crimewatch was to be aired in the UK, the time the trial in Lisbon was in progress. He didn’t suggest at that time that Madeleine was dead far from it – so why would he have held onto those E.Fits for so long, only publicising them at this time, if this child was alive, out there, waiting to be rescued?

Both DCI Redwood and the McCanns keeping these E.Fits under wraps for years and years, the lack of urgency to disclose them, suggests both parties know the child is dead.

The long game, for DCI Redwood, is not I believe to solve this case -he made this clear from the beginning that this was not likely to happen – his long game was to reach the finishing line - his finishing line – retirement! And this is now not too far off. And to reach it having left the public with stories of burglars taking Madeleine, or a pot bellied smelly man, a garbage collector, anyone in fact, just not the McCanns all part of the plan? His dismissal of Tanners sighting, most hailed as just wonderful, Redwood had, we thought, seen at long last, what everyone else had the public, the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police - that Tanner had lied invented a story of a man carrying off a child, so now things could get moving, the investigation could progress. But Redwood must have seen that Tanner’s story was a nonsense LONG before any Metropolitan Police Review/Investigation of this case. Remember too he did not say Tanner made a mistake that she never saw anyone at all, rather, he came up with a story which allowed him to be rid of Tannerman but still allowed for Tanner, her story to seem as though truthful but a simple case of mistaken identity - she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but another child being carried by her daddy, home from the night creche. He also must have known before this Metropolitan Police investigation that the McCanns story of an abductor was a nonsense too.

An abductor who had been watching them for days on end

Who nipped in and out the apartment in minutes while Gerry McCann was standing outside the apartment?
Who jemmied the shutter and window open while Gerry McCann stood outside the apartment?
Who then walked across Gerry McCanns path carrying off Madeleine while McCann stood outside the apartment talking to an acquaintance.
Who jemmied open a shutter and window when this abductor knew if he had been watching them all week and that night also, that Jane Tanner and others would be checking, on their way to do checks of their children entering their apartments at the side of the building where the McCann children's bedroom window was located? The window where Oldfield claims to have listened that very night.

***I must point out that it was proved that the window and shutter had not been jemmied open though that is the story the McCanns told the press and their family and friends back home.***

Kate McCann then changed this jemmied window story, to the abductor having opened the window and shutter from the inside, to create a 'red herring' ---

DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense.

Kate McCann's - ‘They've been watching us, it was only a small window of opportunity but they've been watching us.' 

and

Gerry McCann's - It was a high risk strategy - Jane almost caught him.'

What a load of bullshit! Enough now McCanns!

Redwood knew this was all nonsense. He knew no one went into that apartment at the time the McCanns claimed, that Tanner’s sighting was something they concocted. If his agenda was to not solve this case but get to the finishing line with a resolution as he once said, one which left the McCanns/Tanner et al free – then Tannerman had to go. And so did those statements by Gerry and Kate McCann about 'tiny windows of opportunity and abductors with high risk strategies, abducting Madeleine while he McCann stood outside the apartment. Stories of Jane Tanner almost catching the abductor just too ridiculous for words. (See 'Abductor Almost Caught' blog above)

Neither Jane Tanner or the McCanns batted an eyelid at Redwood getting rid of Tanners sighting.

At the time Crimewatch aired six and a half years after Madeleine’s disappearance, during which time the McCanns had hammered home this sighting, claiming this was the man who had abducted Madeleine, and rejecting all the while the Smith sighting, suppressing the E.Fits for FIVE years, and then Redwood suddenly has a revelation moment and says - Hey the guy Jane Tanner saw did not abduct Madeleine.

And guess what? Neither the McCanns or Jane Tanner had a thing to say about it. Not a word. They did not bat an eyelid.

How can that be?

How is it that the McCanns who for years and years pushed this sighting by Tanner (and still have the sketch artists image on their website) and who did not disclose the E.Fits of the Smith sighting – that all of a sudden they were happy to go along with Redwood’s Revelation - which pretty much made them and Tanner out to be if not liars, having made a serious mistake, and McCann doesn't like to be made out to be wrong. For McCanns, Gerry McCann in particular to have to swallow this after years of robustly telling anyone who questioned this sighting, that they were wrong. Remember his angry response to Sandra Felgueiras where he was so angry he told her that the abductor had almost been caught?

When Ms Felgueiras asked him by whom - Gerry McCann replied 'By Jane!" (Tanner)

So it makes no sense that the McCanns and Tanner went along with Redwood getting rid of the Tanner sighting, unless of course it suited the McCanns. Unless it got them out of a hole! And they were in one huge hole with the Tanner sighting, and their tiny window of opportunity. Who in their right mind believed that tale that an abductor nipped in and took Madeleine while Gerry McCann was outside the apartment? While half the tapas group were going back and forth checking on the kids. Didn't happen!

So, did Redwood introduce Crecheman to the world to

Help Madeleine, her plight, discover what became of her?

OR

To help her parents out of the situation they found themselves, one deep hole of deceit? Was he tasked to solve the crimes against Madeleine, or simply to resolve this matter in a way that was favourable for McCanns, to wind this up good and proper, no jail time for anyone…not the McCanns, their buddies, not the burglars who, Portuguese style, according to Redwood steal kids not material goods, and not the pot- bellied, smelly man, whose only crime was not to wash as often as he should, and who ate too many donuts..? Was the introduction of the burglars and all the smelly people, just persons Redwood had no intention of bringing any charges against through Portuguese Police, but simply used to plant seeds in the minds of the public, to forever hold on to - that a burglar or a smelly man took Madeleine McCann, but that he Redwood just never quite found enough evidence to nail them for it, to bring charges?

Redwood is not running the show in this investigation – Redwood is not calling the shots in this case he has his instructions. He is but a puppet his strings being pulled by someone with a hell of a lot more power – Redwood's only goal as far as I can see is to get over the finishing line, leaving the McCanns in a better place than they were when the Met Investigation started. The McCanns have been so adamant that Jane Tanner saw the abductor all of these years and as we now know, they didn't disclose the E.Fits of the Smith sighting.

Now they did that for a reason.

Would love to have been a fly on wall at that board meeting at the Madeleine Fund - All in favour of hiding the E.Fits say Aye?
I wonder how, good old uncle Brian voted, you know the good governance sort of guy?

The Board of Directors at the Madeleine Fund must be monsters that they would have done this to Madeleine, not disclosed the E.Fits which her daddy five years later is claiming is the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING HER?

Was it not the best chance 5, 4, 3,2,1 year ago?

So why would they the McCanns so readily, easily, suddenly accept DCI Redwood's Revelation - that he had discovered a British dad who he is almost certain is the person Tanner saw, and not someone carrying off Madeleine? Put it this way. The McCann private detectives investigated Tanner sighting thoroughly, as they did the Smith sighting. They dismissed Tanner's sighting as a nonsense, not credible, they created E.Fits of the Smith sighting as it was considered credible. Do we believe for a moment that neither the Portuguese Police, or the McCanns private detectives, the ones who produced the E.Fits, did not check the creche records to see if anyone else had picked up a child that night, a little girl with blonde hair of around Madeleine's age, dressed only in pyjamas, by a male adult? Of course they checked this out, and before DCI Redwood came on the scene, I'd say.

The purpose of Redwood's Revelation Moment, the release of Tanner, freeing her from her statement her sighting - and we all know this woman has lied and lied throughout this case, that is not up for dispute, that is a fact - and by doing so, it also frees the McCanns of their nonsense - the tiny window of opportunity and the high risk strategy. His revelation was to serve a purpose, to take the heat off these people, it was not breakthrough in the case, not that I can see. If the McCann private detectives had discovered that there was indeed a dad who had picked up his daughter that evening, they would not have condemned Tanner, her sighting, they would not have questioned the truthfulness of her account, her police statements. They, and the Portuguese Police too, would have stated that Tanner had not lied, but she had been mistaken, she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but had seen a dad taking his child home.

They didn't!

And the reason I suggest for this is that there is NO crecheman/crechedad whatever you choose to call him!

What we must now consider, is, has Tanner done a deal with the Met spilled the beans in exchange for..?

OR,

And I now lean towards the following

Did Redwood got rid of Tannerman, replacing him with Crecheman, not to solve this case, to move in on the McCanns, get a step closer to having them charged with anything, not them or their buddies, but to dig them out of the hole they dug for themselves? He knows their story doesn't add up. That no one popped into that apartment under Gerry McCanns nose and abducted Madeleine under his nose. He knows also that Tanner's statement to Portuguese Police is no more than lies. He knows the tiny window of opportunity the McCanns spoke of needed widened as no one took Madeleine during that time. To widen it - and to do that, Tanner's sighting had to go. The time gap had to be increased to take the heat off McCanns.

Being rid of Tanner sighting left the focus on Smith sighting - the ideal opportunity to bring the matter of these hidden E.Fits to the fore, the E.Fits McCanns had kept under wraps from the public for five years, and which the Met had kept under wraps for over TWO YEARS. Is Redwood simply ticking off getting rid of all that points to the involvement of Gerry and Kate McCann and their buddies to some degree, in the disappearance of this child? Getting rid of the Tanner sighting, not a step closer to them being charged with anything, rather distancing the McCanns from all the stories they have told, re-writing the FACTS of this case?

The McCann parents sat through many interviews in that FIVE year period during which they were asked by interviewers all manners of things relating to their missing daughter, not least – ‘WERE THERE ANY NEW LEADS?’

McCanns never cracked a light about the E.Fits. They replied in the negative.

THEY LIED – and not for the FIRST TIME, since the disappearance of their daughter!

And if I may quote Kate McCann at this point: "We'd never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice." Madeleine Page 205- 206

I can only imagine based on their track record that they have found themselves in many tricky situations. But why would they then be happy to go along with DCI Redwood if not because it suited them to do so? The McCann twins are getting older if not already asking difficult questions, not too long before they do. I think it suits the McCann down to a 'T' to wrap this mess up now. The Fund will not be receiving the monies it once did, for one. McCanns know Tanner story is bullshit, as is their story of abduction, seven years and not the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police, or any one of the several private detective companies the McCanns have employed, and most certainly not the Metropolitan Police - they're just drowning in shit - have found any evidence whatsoever that an abduction took place.

I cannot imagine the McCanns want their twin children asking questions they cannot answer. Those shutters being one - why they phoned home to the UK on the night Madeleine was reported as missing to several family members and told them this is what had happened. Then when proved wrong, their mummy dreams up a story about an intruder opening the window from the inside to create a red herring? Or why their daddy said he entered by a locked front door using his key then changed his story to having entered the apartment by an unlocked patio door - and they are just the tip of the iceberg.

And the twins might just wonder why mummy and daddy were running in races, laughing having a good time, surfing sofas, at, and around the time when the Metropolitan Police were in Portugal digging for their missing sister/clues? I think it will suit the Metropolitan Police, suit David Cameron, and suit the McCanns to wrap this up now - unsolved shall we say. I just don't see that Redwood is moving in on them, getting ready to catch a McCann, one of their buddies, any culprits in this case who harmed Madeleine, committed crimes against her. I don't see that he got rid of Tannerman to progress this investigation in any positive way for Madeleine, more to assist the parents, to free them, Tanner and the rest of the holiday party from the noose around their neck that was the Tanner sighting.

He has taken the focus from Tannerman placed it firmly with Smithman. But not so as to catch out Gerry McCann.

Redwood before the release of the E.Fits had already ruled out Gerry McCann as being Smithman. It didn't matter to McCann that the E.Fits were to be published. Not now that Redwood the Met had ideas on how to deal with this and the E.Fits. The McCanns worked together with the Met on the Crimewatch Production, several months they said. So the McCanns knew for a very long time that the E.Fits were to be published. It was of no surprise or of concern to them. Who was going to call in and say they saw McCann carrying the child? No one in the UK. Jokers might have called the number and said they thought it looked like McCann, but that is not witnesses. And the Smith family for sure that situation, too must have been 'sorted' before the release of the E.Fits.

If McCann is Smithman, he knows those who crossed his path that night, he knows if there is anyone other than the Smith family to have seen him, and if there was not, then he is secure in the knowledge that no one else will come forward to identify him. The release of the E.Fits by the Met was not a problem for McCann not in the slightest. Not one of the suspects recently interviewed in Portugal fitted Smithman's description either. None of them the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Just an excercise by the Met to give the impression, lots was being done? Redwood by getting rid of Tannerman has re-written the facts of this case. Unless someone, the Portuguese Police, come forward and state that there was no crechedad or the Smith's come forward and positively ID McCann then I would say they are home free.

I would say that being rid of Tannerman is a relief to McCanns, Tanner, and the rest of their group of buddies. For Madeleine the missing child, it is a tragic situation. The most well known missing child in the world. More money thrown at the case than any other, yet it appears to be the most corrupt of cases. Little or nothing positive done to help find the child, more effort spent on cover ups, and the protection of those closest to the child. It is truly beyond all understanding that with so much evidence pointing away from abduction, to parental involvement to some degree by those close to her, with so many lies and inconsistencies in the stories told, that there have been no arrests in this case, that justice for a little girl is yet to be had. That the McCanns still more than seven years on, together with Clarence Mitchell are spinning like tops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOPULx_Risc
6:36m
Kate McCann:
"...because a little girl is still out there missing, you know this is not solved this case. She's still missing and there's an abductor out there a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him..."

Gerry McCalled for transparency!

The irony - that Kate and Gerry McCann to call for transparency, ask the public to come forward with information, preach of how there is still an abductor out there, who is free to abduct children over and over again - WHILE DOING SO THEY WERE SITTING ON THE E.FITS OF THE MAN SUSPECTED OF BEING THAT ABDUCTOR. SITTING ON THAT INFORMATION FOR FIVE YEARS.

Is that transparency in McCannworld? Is that honesty in McCannworld. Is that integrity in McCannworld?

They harp on too of how slow matters take to resolve between the authorities in the UK and in Portugal, blaming Portugal.

HOW MUCH SLOWER CAN ONE GET - FIVE YEARS TO DISCLOSE THE E.FITS TO THE PUBLIC?

Their daughter, unharmed they claim, in the hands of paedophiles (?) yet it took FIVE YEARS to help her.
Five years to release the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING MADELEINE!

If Redwood had not disclosed these E.Fits - were they McCanns ever planning to?
Images of the suspect tucked away, sure in hell wasn't going to put the frighteners on him, stop him abducting kids over and over again. Funny though, how this alleged abductor who is free to commit this same crime over and over again - HASN'T BOTHERED HIS ASS?

Seems he never struck before the Madeleine case, and hasn't struck since! Now there's something for DCI Redwood to ponder!

Hope I am so very wrong about Redwood, Operation Grange, but I just cannot see how getting rid of Tannerman has helped Madeleine, any investigation into her disappearance. It has helped her parents though! It leave hanging lots of questions not least how McCann saw the bedroom door more widely open if the abductor had not struck at the time of his check on his kids at just after 9pm - but I guess Redwood isn't banking on anyone questioning all the little problems that getting rid of Tannerman has thrown up. Like how crechedad was heading in wrong direction? No, Redwood is boldly going where he knows no one is going to go, knowing that none of his stories will be challenged.

Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
6th August 2014

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html

tasprin

Posts : 834
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by cockerspaniel on 07.08.14 20:14

tasprin wrote:Those E.Fits Again
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
6 August 2014

Its all very shocking, sickening that the McCanns would have created, E.Fits of a suspect, a suspect in the disappearance of their missing daughter, described by the Metropolitan Police, as vitally significant to their investigation - yet kept them undisclosed from the public for FIVE YEARS.Five years when young Madeleine if alive could quite possibly have been found, if only these E.Fits had been disclosed.

But there is something not quite right about the whole story of the E.Fits.

Yes the McCanns kept them to themselves for five years, that is did not reveal them to the public, and by so doing without question they failed Madeleine and damaged any search for her. It's incomprehensible for any decent person to even begin to try and understand why the parents of a missing child would do this to the child especially when they have stated that they believed her to have been taken by paedophiles.

There were two sightings on the night Madeleine was reported as missing. The first by Jane Tanner a member of the McCann holiday group. A sighting which the Portuguese Police knew instantly was not credible, knew instantly that Tanner was lying. A sighting which the McCann private detectives said also was not credible! The second sighting by the Smith family, independent witnesses, a family who own a property in Praia da Luz and were holidaying there at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

The McCanns, despite knowing of the Smith family sighting as early as 2007, and despite being advised by their private detectives that Tanner's sighting was not credible (this back in 2008)did not promote the Smith sighting. They gave it a mention in their documentary, but linking it to the Tanner sighting as being one and same person, in so doing misleading the viewing public. But gave no mention that they had in their possession E.Fits.

The Smith sighting was given a mention in Kate McCanns account of the truth, but again, she did not mention that they had in their possession the E.Fits. McCanns quite clearly had no intention of making these E.Fits public of promoting this sighting in the way they did the sighting by their buddy Tanner, the sighting which was all but ruled out by the Portuguese Police and their own private detectives.

Enter, DCI Andy Redwood. He obtains copies of these E.Fits in 2011.

He does not disclose them until Crimewatch aired in the UK on 14th October 2013.

Redwood rolls out at this time his 'Revelation Moment' Seems he, the Metropolitan Police too don't find Jane Tanner's sighting to be credible, Crimewatch the platform for its dismissal. According to Redwood Jane Tanner did not see a man carrying off Madeleine, she saw a man carrying home his little daughter from the creche, a little girl who was wearing pyjamas only, a little girl whose dad didn't bother wrapping the child in a blanket from the cold night air. A British dad on holiday with his family. The name of this dad, like the E.Fits of Smithman was not to be disclosed publicly!

But let us think about it. The McCanns NEVER at any time gave the Smith sighting any real credence. The fact that the kept undisclosed from the public the E.Fits for five years, tells us they were not interested in the slightest in this sighting, which in itself is quite extraordinary. A family of independent witnesses see a man carrying a child matching physically their daughter's description, the child dressed only in pyjamas as their daughter was, at around the time of night when Kate McCann supposedly discovered her daughter to be missing - and they do not disclose the E.Fits?

Their best chance as Gerry McCann said, five years after the E.Fits were put together, of finding Madeleine.

So why wait five years if this was Madeleine's best chance of being found?

Added to which, DCI Redwood kept them a secret too from 2011 until October 2013?

Would it be naive of us to believe that Redwood only learned of the Smith sighting after the commencement of Scotland Yard's involvement in this case?

Of course it would.

Would it be naive of us to believe that DCI Redwood only became aware of the E.Fits after Scotland Yard's involvement in the case?

Probably!

There is of course the tiniest of possibilities that the Met Investigation only became aware after officers from Operation Grange questioned the Smith family and they in turn informed the Met Officers that the McCann private detectives had visited with them, and that they had co-operated with them giving descriptions of the man they had seen so that the E.Fits could be produced.

The Met Officers did interview the Smith family as soon as they began their investigation? Well one would like to think so.
What I am struggling to understand is this.

Redwood, the Met knew that the Tanner sighting was a nonsense, a tale invented, an attempt to beef up the McCann abduction story. We have heard many times that Redwood is playing the long game (it has been well over three years how much darn well longer?) that he has the McCanns and their buddies in his sights. Much as I would like to believe this, and at times, I go there, momentarily, thinking, perhaps he has – but for Redwood to be doing that – he would not be doing ALL of the other things which he has been – and the timing of the release of any information by the Metropolitan Police, ALWAYS at a time favourable to McCanns (not their search for Madeleine, but coinciding at all times with matters pertaining to the legal action they raised against Dr Amaral) has to be considered as suspicious. The timing of the release of the E.Fits/Crimewatch one such incidence. (and no prizes for guessing when he will come out with his next round of revelations!)

Those E.Fits should have been out there IMMEDIATELY but Redwood held them back until Crimewatch was to be aired in the UK, the time the trial in Lisbon was in progress. He didn’t suggest at that time that Madeleine was dead far from it – so why would he have held onto those E.Fits for so long, only publicising them at this time, if this child was alive, out there, waiting to be rescued?

Both DCI Redwood and the McCanns keeping these E.Fits under wraps for years and years, the lack of urgency to disclose them, suggests both parties know the child is dead.

The long game, for DCI Redwood, is not I believe to solve this case -he made this clear from the beginning that this was not likely to happen – his long game was to reach the finishing line - his finishing line – retirement! And this is now not too far off. And to reach it having left the public with stories of burglars taking Madeleine, or a pot bellied smelly man, a garbage collector, anyone in fact, just not the McCanns all part of the plan? His dismissal of Tanners sighting, most hailed as just wonderful, Redwood had, we thought, seen at long last, what everyone else had the public, the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police - that Tanner had lied invented a story of a man carrying off a child, so now things could get moving, the investigation could progress. But Redwood must have seen that Tanner’s story was a nonsense LONG before any Metropolitan Police Review/Investigation of this case. Remember too he did not say Tanner made a mistake that she never saw anyone at all, rather, he came up with a story which allowed him to be rid of Tannerman but still allowed for Tanner, her story to seem as though truthful but a simple case of mistaken identity - she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but another child being carried by her daddy, home from the night creche. He also must have known before this Metropolitan Police investigation that the McCanns story of an abductor was a nonsense too.

An abductor who had been watching them for days on end

Who nipped in and out the apartment in minutes while Gerry McCann was standing outside the apartment?
Who jemmied the shutter and window open while Gerry McCann stood outside the apartment?
Who then walked across Gerry McCanns path carrying off Madeleine while McCann stood outside the apartment talking to an acquaintance.
Who jemmied open a shutter and window when this abductor knew if he had been watching them all week and that night also, that Jane Tanner and others would be checking, on their way to do checks of their children entering their apartments at the side of the building where the McCann children's bedroom window was located? The window where Oldfield claims to have listened that very night.

***I must point out that it was proved that the window and shutter had not been jemmied open though that is the story the McCanns told the press and their family and friends back home.***

Kate McCann then changed this jemmied window story, to the abductor having opened the window and shutter from the inside, to create a 'red herring' ---

DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense.

Kate McCann's - ‘They've been watching us, it was only a small window of opportunity but they've been watching us.' 

and

Gerry McCann's - It was a high risk strategy - Jane almost caught him.'

What a load of bullshit! Enough now McCanns!

Redwood knew this was all nonsense. He knew no one went into that apartment at the time the McCanns claimed, that Tanner’s sighting was something they concocted. If his agenda was to not solve this case but get to the finishing line with a resolution as he once said, one which left the McCanns/Tanner et al free – then Tannerman had to go. And so did those statements by Gerry and Kate McCann about 'tiny windows of opportunity and abductors with high risk strategies, abducting Madeleine while he McCann stood outside the apartment. Stories of Jane Tanner almost catching the abductor just too ridiculous for words. (See 'Abductor Almost Caught' blog above)

Neither Jane Tanner or the McCanns batted an eyelid at Redwood getting rid of Tanners sighting.

At the time Crimewatch aired six and a half years after Madeleine’s disappearance, during which time the McCanns had hammered home this sighting, claiming this was the man who had abducted Madeleine, and rejecting all the while the Smith sighting, suppressing the E.Fits for FIVE years, and then Redwood suddenly has a revelation moment and says - Hey the guy Jane Tanner saw did not abduct Madeleine.

And guess what? Neither the McCanns or Jane Tanner had a thing to say about it. Not a word. They did not bat an eyelid.

How can that be?

How is it that the McCanns who for years and years pushed this sighting by Tanner (and still have the sketch artists image on their website) and who did not disclose the E.Fits of the Smith sighting – that all of a sudden they were happy to go along with Redwood’s Revelation - which pretty much made them and Tanner out to be if not liars, having made a serious mistake, and McCann doesn't like to be made out to be wrong. For McCanns, Gerry McCann in particular to have to swallow this after years of robustly telling anyone who questioned this sighting, that they were wrong. Remember his angry response to Sandra Felgueiras where he was so angry he told her that the abductor had almost been caught?

When Ms Felgueiras asked him by whom - Gerry McCann replied 'By Jane!" (Tanner)

So it makes no sense that the McCanns and Tanner went along with Redwood getting rid of the Tanner sighting, unless of course it suited the McCanns. Unless it got them out of a hole! And they were in one huge hole with the Tanner sighting, and their tiny window of opportunity. Who in their right mind believed that tale that an abductor nipped in and took Madeleine while Gerry McCann was outside the apartment? While half the tapas group were going back and forth checking on the kids. Didn't happen!

So, did Redwood introduce Crecheman to the world to

Help Madeleine, her plight, discover what became of her?

OR

To help her parents out of the situation they found themselves, one deep hole of deceit? Was he tasked to solve the crimes against Madeleine, or simply to resolve this matter in a way that was favourable for McCanns, to wind this up good and proper, no jail time for anyone…not the McCanns, their buddies, not the burglars who, Portuguese style, according to Redwood steal kids not material goods, and not the pot- bellied, smelly man, whose only crime was not to wash as often as he should, and who ate too many donuts..? Was the introduction of the burglars and all the smelly people, just persons Redwood had no intention of bringing any charges against through Portuguese Police, but simply used to plant seeds in the minds of the public, to forever hold on to - that a burglar or a smelly man took Madeleine McCann, but that he Redwood just never quite found enough evidence to nail them for it, to bring charges?

Redwood is not running the show in this investigation – Redwood is not calling the shots in this case he has his instructions. He is but a puppet his strings being pulled by someone with a hell of a lot more power – Redwood's only goal as far as I can see is to get over the finishing line, leaving the McCanns in a better place than they were when the Met Investigation started. The McCanns have been so adamant that Jane Tanner saw the abductor all of these years and as we now know, they didn't disclose the E.Fits of the Smith sighting.

Now they did that for a reason.

Would love to have been a fly on wall at that board meeting at the Madeleine Fund - All in favour of hiding the E.Fits say Aye?
I wonder how, good old uncle Brian voted, you know the good governance sort of guy?

The Board of Directors at the Madeleine Fund must be monsters that they would have done this to Madeleine, not disclosed the E.Fits which her daddy five years later is claiming is the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING HER?

Was it not the best chance 5, 4, 3,2,1 year ago?

So why would they the McCanns so readily, easily, suddenly accept DCI Redwood's Revelation - that he had discovered a British dad who he is almost certain is the person Tanner saw, and not someone carrying off Madeleine? Put it this way. The McCann private detectives investigated Tanner sighting thoroughly, as they did the Smith sighting. They dismissed Tanner's sighting as a nonsense, not credible, they created E.Fits of the Smith sighting as it was considered credible. Do we believe for a moment that neither the Portuguese Police, or the McCanns private detectives, the ones who produced the E.Fits, did not check the creche records to see if anyone else had picked up a child that night, a little girl with blonde hair of around Madeleine's age, dressed only in pyjamas, by a male adult? Of course they checked this out, and before DCI Redwood came on the scene, I'd say.

The purpose of Redwood's Revelation Moment, the release of Tanner, freeing her from her statement her sighting - and we all know this woman has lied and lied throughout this case, that is not up for dispute, that is a fact - and by doing so, it also frees the McCanns of their nonsense - the tiny window of opportunity and the high risk strategy. His revelation was to serve a purpose, to take the heat off these people, it was not breakthrough in the case, not that I can see. If the McCann private detectives had discovered that there was indeed a dad who had picked up his daughter that evening, they would not have condemned Tanner, her sighting, they would not have questioned the truthfulness of her account, her police statements. They, and the Portuguese Police too, would have stated that Tanner had not lied, but she had been mistaken, she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but had seen a dad taking his child home.

They didn't!

And the reason I suggest for this is that there is NO crecheman/crechedad whatever you choose to call him!

What we must now consider, is, has Tanner done a deal with the Met spilled the beans in exchange for..?

OR,

And I now lean towards the following

Did Redwood got rid of Tannerman, replacing him with Crecheman, not to solve this case, to move in on the McCanns, get a step closer to having them charged with anything, not them or their buddies, but to dig them out of the hole they dug for themselves? He knows their story doesn't add up. That no one popped into that apartment under Gerry McCanns nose and abducted Madeleine under his nose. He knows also that Tanner's statement to Portuguese Police is no more than lies. He knows the tiny window of opportunity the McCanns spoke of needed widened as no one took Madeleine during that time. To widen it - and to do that, Tanner's sighting had to go. The time gap had to be increased to take the heat off McCanns.

Being rid of Tanner sighting left the focus on Smith sighting - the ideal opportunity to bring the matter of these hidden E.Fits to the fore, the E.Fits McCanns had kept under wraps from the public for five years, and which the Met had kept under wraps for over TWO YEARS. Is Redwood simply ticking off getting rid of all that points to the involvement of Gerry and Kate McCann and their buddies to some degree, in the disappearance of this child? Getting rid of the Tanner sighting, not a step closer to them being charged with anything, rather distancing the McCanns from all the stories they have told, re-writing the FACTS of this case?

The McCann parents sat through many interviews in that FIVE year period during which they were asked by interviewers all manners of things relating to their missing daughter, not least – ‘WERE THERE ANY NEW LEADS?’

McCanns never cracked a light about the E.Fits. They replied in the negative.

THEY LIED – and not for the FIRST TIME, since the disappearance of their daughter!

And if I may quote Kate McCann at this point: "We'd never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice." Madeleine Page 205- 206

I can only imagine based on their track record that they have found themselves in many tricky situations. But why would they then be happy to go along with DCI Redwood if not because it suited them to do so? The McCann twins are getting older if not already asking difficult questions, not too long before they do. I think it suits the McCann down to a 'T' to wrap this mess up now. The Fund will not be receiving the monies it once did, for one. McCanns know Tanner story is bullshit, as is their story of abduction, seven years and not the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police, or any one of the several private detective companies the McCanns have employed, and most certainly not the Metropolitan Police - they're just drowning in shit - have found any evidence whatsoever that an abduction took place.

I cannot imagine the McCanns want their twin children asking questions they cannot answer. Those shutters being one - why they phoned home to the UK on the night Madeleine was reported as missing to several family members and told them this is what had happened. Then when proved wrong, their mummy dreams up a story about an intruder opening the window from the inside to create a red herring? Or why their daddy said he entered by a locked front door using his key then changed his story to having entered the apartment by an unlocked patio door - and they are just the tip of the iceberg.

And the twins might just wonder why mummy and daddy were running in races, laughing having a good time, surfing sofas, at, and around the time when the Metropolitan Police were in Portugal digging for their missing sister/clues? I think it will suit the Metropolitan Police, suit David Cameron, and suit the McCanns to wrap this up now - unsolved shall we say. I just don't see that Redwood is moving in on them, getting ready to catch a McCann, one of their buddies, any culprits in this case who harmed Madeleine, committed crimes against her. I don't see that he got rid of Tannerman to progress this investigation in any positive way for Madeleine, more to assist the parents, to free them, Tanner and the rest of the holiday party from the noose around their neck that was the Tanner sighting.

He has taken the focus from Tannerman placed it firmly with Smithman. But not so as to catch out Gerry McCann.

Redwood before the release of the E.Fits had already ruled out Gerry McCann as being Smithman. It didn't matter to McCann that the E.Fits were to be published. Not now that Redwood the Met had ideas on how to deal with this and the E.Fits. The McCanns worked together with the Met on the Crimewatch Production, several months they said. So the McCanns knew for a very long time that the E.Fits were to be published. It was of no surprise or of concern to them. Who was going to call in and say they saw McCann carrying the child? No one in the UK. Jokers might have called the number and said they thought it looked like McCann, but that is not witnesses. And the Smith family for sure that situation, too must have been 'sorted' before the release of the E.Fits.

If McCann is Smithman, he knows those who crossed his path that night, he knows if there is anyone other than the Smith family to have seen him, and if there was not, then he is secure in the knowledge that no one else will come forward to identify him. The release of the E.Fits by the Met was not a problem for McCann not in the slightest. Not one of the suspects recently interviewed in Portugal fitted Smithman's description either. None of them the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Just an excercise by the Met to give the impression, lots was being done? Redwood by getting rid of Tannerman has re-written the facts of this case. Unless someone, the Portuguese Police, come forward and state that there was no crechedad or the Smith's come forward and positively ID McCann then I would say they are home free.

I would say that being rid of Tannerman is a relief to McCanns, Tanner, and the rest of their group of buddies. For Madeleine the missing child, it is a tragic situation. The most well known missing child in the world. More money thrown at the case than any other, yet it appears to be the most corrupt of cases. Little or nothing positive done to help find the child, more effort spent on cover ups, and the protection of those closest to the child. It is truly beyond all understanding that with so much evidence pointing away from abduction, to parental involvement to some degree by those close to her, with so many lies and inconsistencies in the stories told, that there have been no arrests in this case, that justice for a little girl is yet to be had. That the McCanns still more than seven years on, together with Clarence Mitchell are spinning like tops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOPULx_Risc
6:36m
Kate McCann:
"...because a little girl is still out there missing, you know this is not solved this case. She's still missing and there's an abductor out there a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him..."

Gerry McCalled for transparency!

The irony - that Kate and Gerry McCann to call for transparency, ask the public to come forward with information, preach of how there is still an abductor out there, who is free to abduct children over and over again - WHILE DOING SO THEY WERE SITTING ON THE E.FITS OF THE MAN SUSPECTED OF BEING THAT ABDUCTOR. SITTING ON THAT INFORMATION FOR FIVE YEARS.

Is that transparency in McCannworld? Is that honesty in McCannworld. Is that integrity in McCannworld?

They harp on too of how slow matters take to resolve between the authorities in the UK and in Portugal, blaming Portugal.

HOW MUCH SLOWER CAN ONE GET - FIVE YEARS TO DISCLOSE THE E.FITS TO THE PUBLIC?

Their daughter, unharmed they claim, in the hands of paedophiles (?) yet it took FIVE YEARS to help her.
Five years to release the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING MADELEINE!

If Redwood had not disclosed these E.Fits - were they McCanns ever planning to?
Images of the suspect tucked away, sure in hell wasn't going to put the frighteners on him, stop him abducting kids over and over again. Funny though, how this alleged abductor who is free to commit this same crime over and over again - HASN'T BOTHERED HIS ASS?

Seems he never struck before the Madeleine case, and hasn't struck since! Now there's something for DCI Redwood to ponder!

Hope I am so very wrong about Redwood, Operation Grange, but I just cannot see how getting rid of Tannerman has helped Madeleine, any investigation into her disappearance. It has helped her parents though! It leave hanging lots of questions not least how McCann saw the bedroom door more widely open if the abductor had not struck at the time of his check on his kids at just after 9pm - but I guess Redwood isn't banking on anyone questioning all the little problems that getting rid of Tannerman has thrown up. Like how crechedad was heading in wrong direction? No, Redwood is boldly going where he knows no one is going to go, knowing that none of his stories will be challenged.

Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
6th August 2014

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
A great piece that you cant argue with, just posted it on another thread re   is this a whitewash. Of course it is !!!!

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.

cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.08.14 21:25

tasprin wrote:Those E.Fits Again
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html
6 August 2014

Its all very shocking, sickening that the McCanns would have created E-Fits of a suspect, a suspect in the disappearance of their missing daughter, described by the Metropolitan Police, as vitally significant to their investigation - yet kept them undisclosed from the public for FIVE YEARS. Five years when young Madeleine if alive could quite possibly have been found, if only these E-Fits had been disclosed.

But there is something not quite right about the whole story of the E-Fits.

That must be the understatement of 2014!

Yes, the McCanns kept them to themselves for five years, that is did not reveal them to the public, and by so doing without question they failed Madeleine

If the E-fits are not genuine, i.e. not produced by the Smiths, then those who drew them up 'failed Madeleine'. But of course, the man who drew them up was Henri Exton, who was employed by Kevin Halligen, who was employed by Brian Kennedy, who was employed by the McCanns and the Directorsof Madeleine's Fund. So these 'not-quite-right' e-fits were drawn up on behalf of the McCanns and the Fund.  

and damaged any search for her. It's incomprehensible for any decent person to even begin to try and understand why the parents of a missing child would do this to the child especially when they have stated that they believed her to have been taken by paedophiles.

As I've posted elesewhere, if the McCanns had cause to believe that the Smiths had NOT drawn up these efits of two very different people, that would be a reason for not disclosing them to the public.

There were two sightings on the night Madeleine was reported as missing. The first by Jane Tanner, a member of the McCann holiday group. A sighting which the Portuguese Police knew instantly was not credible, they knew instantly that Tanner was lying. A sighting which the McCann private detectives said also was not credible! The second sighting by the Smith family, independent witnesses, a family who own a property in Praia da Luz and were holidaying there at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

The McCanns, despite knowing of the Smith family sighting as early as 2007, and despite being advised by their private detectives that Tanner's sighting was not credible (this back in 2008)

We only have Exton's word for that - not a word to be trusted IMO

did not promote the Smith sighting. They gave it a mention in their documentary,

In 2009. THEN put the Irish family sighting on their Find Madeleine website for next 5 YEARS. And TEN, i n2011, gave it SIX pages in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'

but linking it to the Tanner sighting as being one and same person, in so doing misleading the viewing public. But gave no mention that they had in their possession E-Fits.

That's true

The Smith sighting was given a mention in Kate McCann's account of the truth, but again, she did not mention that they had in their possession the E.Fits. The McCanns quite clearly had no intention of making these E-Fits public, [nor] of promoting this sighting in the way they did the sighting by their buddy Tanner, the sighting which was all but ruled out by the Portuguese Police and their own private detectives.

Kate's book made out that Smithman and Tannerman were one and the same.

Enter, DCI Andy Redwood. He obtains copies of these E-Fits in 2011.

August

He does not disclose them until Crimewatch aired in the UK on 14th October 2013.

Redwood rolls out at this time his 'Revelation Moment'.  Seems he, the Metropolitan Police too don't find Jane Tanner's sighting to be credible, Crimewatch the platform for its dismissal. According to Redwood, Jane Tanner did not see a man carrying off Madeleine, she saw a man carrying home his little daughter from the creche, a little girl who was wearing pyjamas only, a little girl whose Dad didn't bother wrapping the child in a blanket from the cold night air. A British Dad on holiday with his family. The name of this Dad, like the E-Fits of Smithman, was not to be disclosed publicly!

That's correct.

But let us think about it. The McCanns NEVER at any time gave the Smith sighting any real credence. The fact that they kept the E-fits undisclosed from the public for five years, tells us they were not interested in the slightest in this sighting, which in itself is quite extraordinary.

The promotion of Smithman by the McCanns on their website for 5 years and on six pages in Dr Kate McCann's book is clear evidence that they DID give Smithman credence. They clearly DID promote him. They held back the e-fits, I suggest, because they knew the Smiths did not draw them up. You could argue, as indeed I do, that 'Smithman' was useful to have in reserve until the 'revelation moment' when Tannerman was finally dispensed with.    

A family of independent witnesses see a man carrying a child matching physically their daughter's description, the child dressed only in pyjamas as their daughter was, at around the time of night when Kate McCann supposedly discovered her daughter to be missing - and they do not disclose the E-Fits?

But did the Smiths dee anyone? And were they actually 'independent,' given the admitted Smith-Murat connection, friends or otherwise? 

Their best chance as Gerry McCann said, five years after the E-Fits were put together, of finding Madeleine.

So why wait five years if this was Madeleine's best chance of being found?

See above. Because the e-fits were NOT produced by the Smiths IMO.

Added to which, DCI Redwood kept them a secret too from 2011 until October 2013?

Would it be naive of us to believe that Redwood only learned of the Smith sighting after the commencement of Scotland Yard's involvement in this case?

Of course it would.

Would it be naive of us to believe that DCI Redwood only became aware of the E-Fits after Scotland Yard's involvement in the case?

Probably!

There is of course the tiniest of possibilities that the Met Investigation only became aware after officers from Operation Grange questioned the Smith family and they in turn informed the Met Officers that the McCann private detectives had visited with them, and that they had co-operated with them giving descriptions of the man they had seen so that the E-Fits could be produced.

That still doesn't anwser the questions of (a) whether or not the Smiths drew up these e-fits nor (b) whether the Smiths now approve the claims by Redwood that the Smiths drew them up. He gave the impression to viewers on Crimewatch that they did, but then Crimewatch used the words 'The Two Witnesses', deliberately IMO NOT claiming directly that the Smiths drew them up. Confusion is good! 

The Met Officers did interview the Smith family as soon as they began their investigation? Well one would like to think so. What I am struggling to understand is this.

Redwood, the Met, knew that the Tanner sighting was a nonsense, a tale invented, an attempt to beef up the McCann abduction story. We have heard many times that Redwood is playing the long game (it has been well over three years how much darn well longer?) that he has the McCanns and their buddies in his sights. Much as I would like to believe this, and at times, I go there, momentarily, thinking, perhaps he has – but for Redwood to be doing that – he would not be doing ALL of the other things which he has been – and the timing of the release of any information by the Metropolitan Police, ALWAYS at a time favourable to McCanns (not their search for Madeleine, but coinciding at all times with matters pertaining to the legal action they raised against Dr Amaral) has to be considered as suspicious. The timing of the release of the E-Fits/Crimewatch [being] one such incidence. (and no prizes for guessing when he will come out with his next round of revelations!)

There is much to agree with in that paragraph.

Those E-Fits should have been out there IMMEDIATELY but Redwood held them back until Crimewatch was to be aired in the UK, the time the trial in Lisbon was in progress.

The Crimewatch programme was planned at least six months in advance, the BBC said, and it cost them over £1 million.

He didn’t suggest at that time that Madeleine was dead, far from it – so why would he have held onto those E-Fits for so long, only publicising them at this time, if this child was alive, out there, waiting to be rescued?

Both DCI Redwood and the McCanns keeping these E-Fits under wraps for years and years, the lack of urgency to disclose them, suggests both parties know the child is dead.

The long game, for DCI Redwood, is not I believe to solve this case - he made this clear from the beginning that this was not likely to happen – his long game was to reach the finishing line - his finishing line - retirement! And this is now not too far off. And to reach it having left the public with stories of burglars taking Madeleine, or a pot-bellied smelly man, a garbage collector, anyone in fact, just not the McCanns all part of the plan? His dismissal of Tanners sighting, most hailed as just wonderful, Redwood had, we thought, seen at long last, what everyone else had the public, the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police - that Tanner had lied invented a story of a man carrying off a child, so now things could get moving, the investigation could progress. But Redwood must have seen that Tanner’s story was a nonsense LONG before any Metropolitan Police Review/Investigation of this case. Remember too he did not say Tanner made a mistake that she never saw anyone at all, rather, he came up with a story which allowed him to be rid of Tannerman but still allowed for Tanner, her story to seem as though truthful but a simple case of mistaken identity - she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but another child being carried by her daddy, home from the night creche. He also must have known before this Metropolitan Police investigation that the McCanns story of an abductor was a nonsense too.

This amounts to a suggestion that Grange was a deiberate whitewash from Day One.  

An abductor who had been watching them for days on end...

Who nipped in and out the apartment in minutes while Gerry McCann was standing outside the apartment?
Who jemmied the shutter and window open while Gerry McCann stood outside the apartment?
Who then walked across Gerry McCanns path carrying off Madeleine while McCann stood outside the apartment talking to an acquaintance.
Who jemmied open a shutter and window when this abductor knew if he had been watching them all week and that night also, that Jane Tanner and others would be checking, on their way to do checks of their children entering their apartments at the side of the building where the McCann children's bedroom window was located? The window where Oldfield claims to have listened that very night.

***I must point out that it was proved that the window and shutter had not been jemmied open though that is the story the McCanns told the press and their family and friends back home.***

Kate McCann then changed this jemmied window story, to the abductor having opened the window and shutter from the inside, to create a 'red herring'.

---

DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense.

Kate McCann's - ‘They've been watching us, it was only a small window of opportunity but they've been watching us.' 

and

Gerry McCann's - It was a high risk strategy - Jane almost caught him.'

What a load of bullshit! Enough now McCanns!

Redwood knew this was all nonsense. He knew no one went into that apartment at the time the McCanns claimed, that Tanner’s sighting was something they concocted. If his agenda was to not solve this case but get to the finishing line with a resolution as he once said, one which left the McCanns/Tanner et al free – then Tannerman had to go. And so did those statements by Gerry and Kate McCann about 'tiny windows of opportunity and abductors with high risk strategies, abducting Madeleine while he McCann stood outside the apartment. Stories of Jane Tanner almost catching the abductor just too ridiculous for words. (See 'Abductor Almost Caught' blog above)

Neither Jane Tanner or the McCanns batted an eyelid at Redwood getting rid of Tanners sighting.

At the time Crimewatch aired six and a half years after Madeleine’s disappearance, during which time the McCanns had hammered home this sighting, claiming this was the man who had abducted Madeleine, and rejecting all the while the Smith sighting,

No, that's simply not true, the McCanns had already used and promoted Smithman for well over 4 years before CrimeWatch, that's an integral part of the whole story. Some on this forum have even claimed that the McCanns suppressed Smithman - far from it. Let us, rather, examine WHY the McCanns promoted Smithman for 5 years


suppressing the E-Fits for FIVE years, and then Redwood suddenly has a revelation moment and says - Hey the guy Jane Tanner saw did not abduct Madeleine.

And guess what? Neither the McCanns or Jane Tanner had a thing to say about it. Not a word. They did not bat an eyelid.

How can that be?

How is it that the McCanns who for years and years pushed this sighting by Tanner (and still have the sketch artists image on their website) and who did not disclose the E-Fits of the Smith sighting – that all of a sudden they were happy to go along with Redwood’s Revelation - which pretty much made them and Tanner out to be if not liars, having made a serious mistake, and McCann doesn't like to be made out to be wrong. For McCanns, Gerry McCann in particular to have to swallow this after years of robustly telling anyone who questioned this sighting, that they were wrong. Remember his angry response to Sandra Felgueiras where he was so angry he told her that the abductor had almost been caught?

When Ms Felgueiras asked him by whom - Gerry McCann replied 'By Jane!" (Tanner)

So it makes no sense that the McCanns and Tanner went along with Redwood getting rid of the Tanner sighting, unless of course it suited the McCanns. Unless it got them out of a hole! And they were in one huge hole with the Tanner sighting, and their tiny window of opportunity. Who in their right mind believed that tale that an abductor nipped in and took Madeleine while Gerry McCann was outside the apartment? While half the tapas group were going back and forth checking on the kids. Didn't happen!

So, did Redwood introduce Crecheman to the world to

Help Madeleine, her plight, discover what became of her?

OR

To help her parents out of the situation they found themselves, one deep hole of deceit? Was he tasked to solve the crimes against Madeleine, or simply to resolve this matter in a way that was favourable for McCanns, to wind this up good and proper, no jail time for anyone…not the McCanns, their buddies, not the burglars who, Portuguese style, according to Redwood steal kids not material goods, and not the pot-bellied, smelly man, whose only crime was not to wash as often as he should, and who ate too many donuts..? Was the introduction of the burglars and all the smelly people, just persons Redwood had no intention of bringing any charges against through Portuguese Police, but simply used to plant seeds in the minds of the public, to forever hold on to - that a burglar or a smelly man took Madeleine McCann, but that he Redwood just never quite found enough evidence to nail them for it, to bring charges?

The 'whitewash from Day One' theory again

Redwood is not running the show in this investigation – Redwood is not calling the shots in this case he has his instructions.

His boss from 2011 to 2013 was Detective Superintendent Hamish Campbell, the man who worngly prosecuted Barry Bulsara/George because of a single speck of firearms residue allegdly 'found' in his coat pocket. And who put Campbell in charge of Grange? Someone higher up!

He is but a puppet his strings being pulled by someone with a hell of a lot more power – Redwood's only goal as far as I can see is to get over the finishing line, leaving the McCanns in a better place than they were when the Met Investigation started. The McCanns have been so adamant that Jane Tanner saw the abductor all of these years and as we now know, they didn't disclose the E-Fits of the Smith sighting.

Now they did that for a reason.

Would love to have been a fly on wall at that board meeting at the Madeleine Fund - All in favour of hiding the E-Fits say Aye?
I wonder how, good old uncle Brian voted, you know, the good governance sort of guy?

The Board of Directors at the Madeleine Fund must be monsters that they would have done this to Madeleine, not disclosed the E-Fits which her daddy five years later is claiming is the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING HER?

Was it not the best chance 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 year ago?

So why would they the McCanns so readily, easily, suddenly accept DCI Redwood's Revelation - that he had discovered a British dad who he is almost certain is the person Tanner saw, and not someone carrying off Madeleine? Put it this way. The McCann private detectives investigated Tanner sighting thoroughly, as they did the Smith sighting. They dismissed Tanner's sighting as a nonsense, not credible, they created E-Fits of the Smith sighting as it was considered credible.

I emphasise once again, we only have Exton's word for all this at the moment

Do we believe for a moment that neither the Portuguese Police, or the McCanns private detectives, the ones who produced the E.Fits, did not check the creche records to see if anyone else had picked up a child that night, a little girl with blonde hair of around Madeleine's age, dressed only in pyjamas, by a male adult? Of course they checked this out, and before DCI Redwood came on the scene, I'd say.

The purpose of Redwood's Revelation Moment, the release of Tanner, freeing her from her statement her sighting - and we all know this woman has lied and lied throughout this case, that is not up for dispute, that is a fact - and by doing so, it also frees the McCanns of their nonsense - the tiny window of opportunity and the high risk strategy. His revelation was to serve a purpose, to take the heat off these people, it was not breakthrough in the case, not that I can see. If the McCann private detectives had discovered that there was indeed a dad who had picked up his daughter that evening, they would not have condemned Tanner, her sighting, they would not have questioned the truthfulness of her account, her police statements. They, and the Portuguese Police too, would have stated that Tanner had not lied, but she had been mistaken, she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but had seen a dad taking his child home.

They didn't!

And the reason I suggest for this is that there is NO crecheman/crechedad whatever you choose to call him!

I fully agree with that statement.

What we must now consider, is, has Tanner done a deal with the Met spilled the beans in exchange for..?

IMO NO

OR,

And I now lean towards the following

Did Redwood got rid of Tannerman, replacing him with Crecheman, not to solve this case, to move in on the McCanns, get a step closer to having them charged with anything, not them or their buddies, but to dig them out of the hole they dug for themselves? He knows their story doesn't add up. That no one popped into that apartment under Gerry McCanns nose and abducted Madeleine under his nose. He knows also that Tanner's statement to Portuguese Police is no more than lies. He knows the tiny window of opportunity the McCanns spoke of needed widened as no one took Madeleine during that time. To widen it - and to do that, Tanner's sighting had to go. The time gap had to be increased to take the heat off McCanns.

Being rid of Tanner sighting left the focus on Smith sighting - the ideal opportunity to bring the matter of these hidden E.Fits to the fore, the E.Fits McCanns had kept under wraps from the public for five years, and which the Met had kept under wraps for over TWO YEARS. Is Redwood simply ticking off getting rid of all that points to the involvement of Gerry and Kate McCann and their buddies to some degree, in the disappearance of this child? Getting rid of the Tanner sighting, not a step closer to them being charged with anything, rather distancing the McCanns from all the stories they have told, re-writing the FACTS of this case?

The McCann parents sat through many interviews in that FIVE year period during which they were asked by interviewers all manners of things relating to their missing daughter, not least – ‘WERE THERE ANY NEW LEADS?’

McCanns never cracked a light about the E.Fits. They replied in the negative.

THEY LIED – and not for the FIRST TIME, since the disappearance of their daughter!

And if I may quote Kate McCann at this point: "We'd never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice." Madeleine Page 205- 206

I can only imagine based on their track record that they have found themselves in many tricky situations. But why would they then be happy to go along with DCI Redwood if not because it suited them to do so? The McCann twins are getting older if not already asking difficult questions, not too long before they do. I think it suits the McCann down to a 'T' to wrap this mess up now. The Fund will not be receiving the monies it once did, for one. McCanns know Tanner story is bullshit, as is their story of abduction, seven years and not the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police, or any one of the several private detective companies the McCanns have employed, and most certainly not the Metropolitan Police - they're just drowning in shit - have found any evidence whatsoever that an abduction took place.

I cannot imagine the McCanns want their twin children asking questions they cannot answer. Those shutters being one - why they phoned home to the UK on the night Madeleine was reported as missing to several family members and told them this is what had happened. Then when proved wrong, their mummy dreams up a story about an intruder opening the window from the inside to create a red herring? Or why their daddy said he entered by a locked front door using his key then changed his story to having entered the apartment by an unlocked patio door - and they are just the tip of the iceberg.

And the twins might just wonder why mummy and daddy were running in races, laughing having a good time, surfing sofas, at, and around the time when the Metropolitan Police were in Portugal digging for their missing sister/clues? I think it will suit the Metropolitan Police, suit David Cameron, and suit the McCanns to wrap this up now - unsolved shall we say. I just don't see that Redwood is moving in on them, getting ready to catch a McCann, one of their buddies, any culprits in this case who harmed Madeleine, committed crimes against her. I don't see that he got rid of Tannerman to progress this investigation in any positive way for Madeleine, more to assist the parents, to free them, Tanner and the rest of the holiday party from the noose around their neck that was the Tanner sighting.

He has taken the focus from Tannerman placed it firmly with Smithman. But not so as to catch out Gerry McCann.

Redwood before the release of the E.Fits had already ruled out Gerry McCann as being Smithman. It didn't matter to McCann that the E.Fits were to be published. Not now that Redwood the Met had ideas on how to deal with this and the E.Fits. The McCanns worked together with the Met on the Crimewatch Production, several months they said. So the McCanns knew for a very long time that the E.Fits were to be published.

Exactly right. So claims made by some on this forum that the McCanns looked 'shocked' at seeing the images of the alleged 'Smithman' and the alleged resemblance to Gerry McCann cannot be correct 

It was of no surprise or of concern to them. Who was going to call in and say they saw McCann carrying the child? No one in the UK. Jokers might have called the number and said they thought it looked like McCann, but that is not witnesses. And the Smith family for sure that situation, too must have been 'sorted' before the release of the E.Fits.

If McCann is Smithman,

I am sure he is not, for reasons I've given many times before
 
he knows those who crossed his path that night, he knows if there is anyone other than the Smith family to have seen him, and if there was not, then he is secure in the knowledge that no one else will come forward to identify him. The release of the E.Fits by the Met was not a problem for McCann not in the slightest. Not one of the suspects recently interviewed in Portugal fitted Smithman's description either. None of them the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Just an excercise by the Met to give the impression, lots was being done? Redwood by getting rid of Tannerman has re-written the facts of this case. Unless someone, the Portuguese Police, come forward and state that there was no crechedad or the Smith's come forward and positively ID McCann then I would say they are home free.

How can the Smiths positively ID Gerry McCann as the man they claimed to have seen? It is simply impossible for them, and Martin Smith's claim to have recognised him from the way he was carrying his child is suspicious, to put it mildly    

I would say that being rid of Tannerman is a relief to McCanns, Tanner, and the rest of their group of buddies. For Madeleine the missing child, it is a tragic situation. The most well known missing child in the world. More money thrown at the case than any other, yet it appears to be the most corrupt of cases. Little or nothing positive done to help find the child, more effort spent on cover ups, and the protection of those closest to the child. It is truly beyond all understanding that with so much evidence pointing away from abduction, to parental involvement to some degree by those close to her, with so many lies and inconsistencies in the stories told, that there have been no arrests in this case, that justice for a little girl is yet to be had. That the McCanns still more than seven years on, together with Clarence Mitchell are spinning like tops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOPULx_Risc
6:36m
Kate McCann:
"...because a little girl is still out there missing, you know this is not solved this case. She's still missing and there's an abductor out there a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him..."

Gerry McCalled for transparency!

The irony - that Kate and Gerry McCann to call for transparency, ask the public to come forward with information, preach of how there is still an abductor out there, who is free to abduct children over and over again - WHILE DOING SO THEY WERE SITTING ON THE E.FITS OF THE MAN SUSPECTED OF BEING THAT ABDUCTOR. SITTING ON THAT INFORMATION FOR FIVE YEARS.

Is that transparency in McCannworld? Is that honesty in McCannworld. Is that integrity in McCannworld?

They harp on too of how slow matters take to resolve between the authorities in the UK and in Portugal, blaming Portugal.

HOW MUCH SLOWER CAN ONE GET - FIVE YEARS TO DISCLOSE THE E.FITS TO THE PUBLIC?

Their daughter, unharmed they claim, in the hands of paedophiles (?) yet it took FIVE YEARS to help her.
Five years to release the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING MADELEINE!

If Redwood had not disclosed these E.Fits - were they McCanns ever planning to?
Images of the suspect tucked away, sure in hell wasn't going to put the frighteners on him, stop him abducting kids over and over again. Funny though, how this alleged abductor who is free to commit this same crime over and over again - HASN'T BOTHERED HIS ASS?

Seems he never struck before the Madeleine case, and hasn't struck since! Now there's something for DCI Redwood to ponder!

Hope I am so very wrong about Redwood, Operation Grange, but I just cannot see how getting rid of Tannerman has helped Madeleine, any investigation into her disappearance. It has helped her parents though! It leave hanging lots of questions not least how McCann saw the bedroom door more widely open if the abductor had not struck at the time of his check on his kids at just after 9pm - but I guess Redwood isn't banking on anyone questioning all the little problems that getting rid of Tannerman has thrown up. Like how crechedad was heading in wrong direction? No, Redwood is boldly going where he knows no one is going to go, knowing that none of his stories will be challenged.

They are being challenged - right here on this forum

Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
6th August 2014

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Those_E.html

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by jeanmonroe on 08.08.14 1:39

Kate McCann:
"...because a little girl is still out there missing, you know this is not solved this case. She's still missing and there's an abductor out there a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him..."
---------------------------------------------------

Kate McCann says "if we let HIM..."
-----------------------------------

So, 'abductor' is NOT a "SHE" or a "THEY" then, as GM said, on record, outside the Lisbon court, in July 2014?

Tue 8 Jul 2014 UK

Gerry McCann has told reporters that he believes the person who abducted their four-year-old daughter Madeleine in Portugal in 2007 could kidnap another child.

"He or she or they may strike again," he said.

Hmmmmm

"could do" "might do" "may do"

A one provable FACT is, that there have been NO 'abductions' in or from PDL SINCE the unsubstantiated, unproven, no evidenced, 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann in May 2007!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5128
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by PeterMac on 08.08.14 8:08

jeanmonroe wrote:
A one provable FACT is, that there have been NO 'abductions' in or from PDL SINCE the unsubstantiated, unproven, no evidenced, 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann in May 2007!
And a second provable fact is that there HAD BEEN no 'abductions' in the many years before.

Re Smithman:
for me he falls into the same category as the Last Photo.
He is an attempt to show that Madeleine existed on 3/5/7,
Once Tannerman had been blown out of the water he could then be pushed to the forefront, whereas before they were stuck with TWO 'sightings' - however they got them - ludicrously far apart, both in space and time.

For all the reasons we know Smithman is irrelevant to the immediate fate of Madeleine.
It wasn't Gerry and it wasn't Madeleine.
But he causes us to take our eye off the squirrel - which is probably the intention.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by Tony Bennett on 08.08.14 8:33

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
A one provable FACT is, that there have been NO 'abductions' in or from PDL SINCE the unsubstantiated, unproven, no evidenced, 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann in May 2007!
And a second provable fact is that there HAD BEEN no 'abductions' in the many years before.

Re Smithman:
for me he falls into the same category as the Last Photo.
He is an attempt to show that Madeleine existed on 3/5/7,
Once Tannerman had been blown out of the water he could then be pushed to the forefront, whereas before they were stuck with TWO 'sightings' - however they got them - ludicrously far apart, both in space and time.

For all the reasons we know Smithman is irrelevant to the immediate fate of Madeleine.
It wasn't Gerry and it wasn't Madeleine.
But he causes us to take our eye off the squirrel - which is probably the intention.
@ PeterMac:   I agree with your above, carefully-phrased post, but there is one more thing that needs to be said about 'Smithman'.

It looks very much as though 'Smithman' may shortly be held up by DCI Redwood to the world as definitely the abductor, as the Scotland Yard investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann closes.

And if I am right about 'Smithman', this could even be on the basis of a second bogus sighting.

Not to mention the probably bogus 'crecheman', which would then make three bogus sightings

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Those E-Fits Again (WITHHELD from the PUBLIC for FIVE years) by L-azzeri

Post by jeanmonroe on 08.08.14 11:37

It looks very much as though 'Smithman' may shortly be held up by DCI Redwood to the world as definitely the abductor..
-------------------------------------------------------

Pure SUPPOSITION, on DCI Redwood's behalf, M'lady.

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5128
Reputation : 883
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum