Re: The McCanns on CrimeWatch - REPORT

by aiyoyo 17.09.14 12:14

BlueBag wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
All in all, very strange for BBC (?) to feature the Mcs and have them and the head-detective-in-charge come on to say nothing (of significance) really. Why rehash clips from reconstruction not as if this was meant as another appeal? Bizzare!

It's part of the S&S book blitz.

Goebbels springs to mind.

There's possibility Summers connection to BBC may have something to do with his decision to write the book, having been introduced (perhaps) to the Mcs through associates in BBC that are mutual friends/supporters of the Mccanns, but I don't see what has Redwood got to do with part of the S&S book blitz?

It would of interest to know the circumstances under which the authors and Mcs met?
Did they encounter the Mcs through their own instigation/initiative or through a third party and who might the third party be? Knowing whether the authors meeting with Mcs was taken independently or influenced by third party could go a long way to explain why the book is slanted one way and totally devoid of objectivity.

by j.rob 17.09.14 12:21

It was featured in a larger, rather boastful section of the programme hailed as Crimewatch ‘Not only solving crimes, but actually Making The News’.

I mis-read this initially as: 'Crimewatch Not only solving crimes, but actually Making Them Happen.'

Or perhaps that should be: 'Not only solving crimes, but also covering them up.'

by Guest 17.09.14 12:32

Some may think there is coordination going on.

It does look like it.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.09.14 12:42

aiyoyo wrote:
There's possibility Summers connection to BBC may have something to do with his decision to write the book, having been introduced (perhaps) to the Mcs through associates in BBC that are mutual friends/supporters of the Mccanns, but I don't see what has Redwood got to do with part of the S&S book blitz?

It would of interest to know the circumstances under which the authors and Mcs met?

Did they encounter the Mcs through their own instigation/initiative or through a third party and who might the third party be? Knowing whether the authors meeting with Mcs was taken independently or influenced by third party could go a long way to explain why the book is slanted one way and totally devoid of objectivity.

@ aiyoyo

There are certain people in this world who will do all sorts of things for money.

And such people, being birds of a feather who flock together, tend to know each other.

They 'call in favours'.

I would like to name certain names who I think have done nothing but obey their masters' orders in this case, Gary Hagland springs to mind as a possibility, for example. And DCI Andy Redwood being another.

People like this will most certainly be prepared to lie if the occasion demands.

And in the case of Summers and Swan, they will certainly have been prepared to write a book to order by those who are paying them. Indeed, it looks like that they've done that in the past.

Contrast that with Richard D Hall who covered his costs in making a fact-packed 4.5-hour film - and then made it available for free viewing at various places on the internet.

If you add the mumbers who have viewed the DVDs on his website (tens of thousands) with those who've viewed it on YouTube (around 75,000 to date), around 150,000 or more have seen that film already.

I'll bet that's a great deal more than will ever read Summers and Swan's book, the contents of which were most likely dictated to them at their various meetings with the McCanns, the Met Police, and of course at their very long series of meetings with that appointer of dodgy detectives, Brian Kennedy, who is given hero treatment in their book.

Follow the money

by Woofer 17.09.14 13:19

Crimewatch have never been interested in `paedophile rings` it seems. Yes, they claim to have helped arrest 18 paedophiles in 25 years, but these seem to be loners.

Is this because the police didn`t want to bring attention to what they were investigating or is it because they prefer to deny these rings exist?

In the last 25 years there would have been ample opportunities for Crimewatch to appeal to victims to come forward. Who prevented this, the BBC or the police?

And I can`t find any reference to Crimewatch themselves stating that Jill Dando was investigating a paedophile ring.

by jeanmonroe 17.09.14 13:42

Woofer wrote:Crimewatch have never been interested in `paedophile rings` it seems. Yes, they claim to have helped arrest 18 paedophiles in 25 years, but these seem to be loners.

Is this because the police didn`t want to bring attention to what they were investigating or is it because they prefer to deny these rings exist?

In the last 25 years there would have been ample opportunities for Crimewatch to appeal to victims to come forward. Who prevented this, the BBC or the police?

And I can`t find any reference to Crimewatch themselves stating that Jill Dando was investigating a paedophile ring.

AND 'Grimewatch' THEMSELVES could have 'arrested' the PAEDO's that 'worked' in the very SAME building, as them, at the BBC!

JS, SH, RH etc.,

Duh me! Of course they couldn't 'arrest' them, could they?

THEY were all 'nachunal treasure's' according to the BBC, weren't they?

"Sshhhhhhhhhh" shhhh

As 'Basil Fawlty' would have said "don't mention the 'nachunal treasure' Paedo's!, (at the BBC)"

by Liz Eagles 17.09.14 17:52

I don't know if it's just me but I find it strange with all the talk of the huge response to Redwood's e-fit appeal that the opportunity wasn't taken to show the e-fit images again - it would have only taken a second or two.

It's almost as if it's past tense and no longer matters.

by Guest 17.09.14 18:48

aquila wrote:I don't know if it's just me but I find it strange with all the talk of the huge response to Redwood's e-fit appeal that the opportunity wasn't taken to show the e-fit images again - it would have only taken a second or two.

It's almost as if it's past tense and no longer matters.

All the clips of the suspect last night showed Tannerman, not Smithman. Neither film showing the reconstruction of Smithman, nor stills focussing on the 'Smithman' e-fits. Instead we had Tannerman carrying the child horizontally at the end of the street, a still of the iconic Tannerman pic behind Redwood's head as he discussed the 10 o'clock sighting and a large full screen blow-up of the same picture afterwards. You could see the Smithman e-fits in the background but they weren't focussed on.

Why, when the whole point of CW last year was to eliminate Tannerman with the discovery of Crecheman?

by Liz Eagles 17.09.14 19:16

Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:I don't know if it's just me but I find it strange with all the talk of the huge response to Redwood's e-fit appeal that the opportunity wasn't taken to show the e-fit images again - it would have only taken a second or two.

It's almost as if it's past tense and no longer matters.

All the clips of the suspect last night showed Tannerman, not Smithman. Neither film showing the reconstruction of Smithman, nor stills focussing on the 'Smithman' e-fits. Instead we had Tannerman carrying the child horizontally at the end of the street, a still of the iconic Tannerman pic behind Redwood's head as he discussed the 10 o'clock sighting and a large full screen blow-up of the same picture afterwards. You could see the Smithman e-fits in the background but they weren't focussed on.

Why, when the whole point of CW last year was to eliminate Tannerman with the discovery of Crecheman?

Yep, crecheman was there even though he's been identified by OG and is apparently no longer of interest. The revelation moment was the e-fits. This was the huge hype from Redwood in the run up to last year's Crimewatch show.

Yesterday Redwood took no opportunity to show the e-fits once more - this is a live 'investigation' isn't it? Did Redwood think that just the one showing last year unturned that stone, revealed that key piece of information, discovered that missing piece of the jigsaw? or did Redwood want to demonstrate how hard the OG team are working and how a team is briefed for a Crimewatch appeal? I know which one I think it is.

The McCanns parked their tanned torsos on a sofa (by invitation) and didn't appeal for information did they?

Poor Madeleine McCann.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.09.14 19:24

Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:I don't know if it's just me but I find it strange with all the talk of the huge response to Redwood's e-fit appeal that the opportunity wasn't taken to show the e-fit images again - it would have only taken a second or two.

It's almost as if it's past tense and no longer matters.

All the clips of the suspect last night showed Tannerman, not Smithman. Neither film showing the reconstruction of Smithman, nor stills focussing on the 'Smithman' e-fits. Instead we had Tannerman carrying the child horizontally at the end of the street, a still of the iconic Tannerman pic behind Redwood's head as he discussed the 10 o'clock sighting and a large full screen blow-up of the same picture afterwards. You could see the Smithman e-fits in the background but they weren't focussed on.

Why, when the whole point of CW last year was to eliminate Tannerman with the discovery of Crecheman?

@ aquila @ Dee Coy

All is fully explicable if you accept that Operation Grange has been an expensive charade from Day One.

Thus the Alouette Mark III helicopters, the dig skilfully arranged so that the world's media could see people wth pickaxes, and the 6.7 million audience for CrimeWatch, can all be seen as naked propaganda.

To be successful, the BBC and Redwood needed a highlight, a 'star of the show' so to speak.

This was provided by the coupling of 'Redwood's Revelation' - the probable invention of Crecheman - with the lucky availability of two e-fits which had been gathering dust for 5 years. Martin Smith had to play his part of course - that's why Redwood saw him twice, in 2012 and 2013. Without Smith's co-operation, they could not succeed.

The build-up was staggering - two weeks or more of fantastically dramatic front page headlines speaking of 'breakthrough', 'new suspects', 'dramatic new leads' and even 'imminent arrests'. Hype of the most transparent character, and all basically untrue, but with a handy four suspects lurking in the background to fill in forms answering 253 questions, including: "Did you abduct Madeleine McCann?"

'Smithman' has now served his purpose.

They are so cocky now that they don't even bother to think of how absurd it is to have told 6.7 million people to look for 'Smithman', yet a year later show repeats of Tannerman - who of course is now Crecheman - and thus has been eliminated from their enquiries.

The top brass of both the BBC and the Met co-operated for at least six months, spent millions on it, devised a 'reconstruction' which left out all sort of awkward facts about 3 May 2007, and planned every word of a very carefully-worded script.

We have been systematically blinded about this case for 7 years - and now CrimeWatch is emphasising the 'international reach' of this story.

++++++

All of this of course is just my humble opinon based on detailed observation of the main players in this case over the past 7 years, and what I've written above could well be utter nonsense

by Naz_Nomad 17.09.14 19:49

aquila wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
aquila wrote:I don't know if it's just me but I find it strange with all the talk of the huge response to Redwood's e-fit appeal that the opportunity wasn't taken to show the e-fit images again - it would have only taken a second or two.

It's almost as if it's past tense and no longer matters.

All the clips of the suspect last night showed Tannerman, not Smithman. Neither film showing the reconstruction of Smithman, nor stills focussing on the 'Smithman' e-fits. Instead we had Tannerman carrying the child horizontally at the end of the street, a still of the iconic Tannerman pic behind Redwood's head as he discussed the 10 o'clock sighting and a large full screen blow-up of the same picture afterwards. You could see the Smithman e-fits in the background but they weren't focussed on.

Why, when the whole point of CW last year was to eliminate Tannerman with the discovery of Crecheman?
Yep, crecheman was there even though he's been identified by OG and is apparently no longer of interest. The revelation moment was the e-fits. This was the huge hype from Redwood in the run up to last year's Crimewatch show.

Yesterday Redwood took no opportunity to show the e-fits once more - this is a live 'investigation' isn't it? Did Redwood think that just the one showing last year unturned that stone, revealed that key piece of information, discovered that missing piece of the jigsaw? or did Redwood want to demonstrate how hard the OG team are working and how a team is briefed for a Crimewatch appeal? I know which one I think it is.

The McCanns parked their tanned torsos on a sofa (by invitation) and didn't appeal for information did they?

Poor Madeleine McCann.

I expect the appeal for information last October, re "Smithman" brought in too many calls who identified him as Gerry? Or too much similar speculation online. They didn't want to do that again. Maybe they think if they ignore it, it'll go away?

by Guest 17.09.14 20:02

But regardless of whether or not OG is a whitewash they must have known they'd get this reaction. If a whitewash, the sacrificing of Tannerman for a larger opportunity time meant promoting Smithman and the Gerry-esque e-fits. Controlled and as a need to an end, they could ignore the avalanche of 'helpful' Gerry-identifiers.

If a genuine investigation they must've known they were throwing him to the wolves as they will already have concluded the likely perpetrators, imo.

So why the backtrack? If necessary then, why not still?

by HelenMeg 17.09.14 22:01

They are so cocky now that they don't even bother to think of how absurd it is to have told 6.7 million people to look for 'Smithman', yet a year later show repeats of Tannerman - who of course is now Crecheman - and thus has been eliminated from their enquiries. snipped from Tony

It seems a likely explanation!

I cant make out what Redwood is really like. He comes across as pretty genuine but also as someone who just follows the remit he has been given. He cant be that stupid, can he? He must know he is just the man who is following orders and will have to conclude the investigation in whatever way he is told. If he is willing to do that then he is prepared to sacrifice truth and justice for his own comfortable future. I look at him and I just think ' you cant be that intelligent or full of integrity - you are being used - you must be a bit thick or desperate to safeguard your self' - I cant respect the man at all yet he comes across as very earnest and slightly thick...

Just who is Andy Redwood - thats what I want to know...

by jeanmonroe 18.09.14 13:13

Just who is Andy Redwood - thats what I want to know...
---------------------------------------

He is, imho, NOW just another 'corrupt' coppper!

He, his 37 other 'Maddie Cops' at OG have been 'peed on' from a great height by his 'boss' BHH AND the McCanns!

Hence 'Tannerman' e-fit on this latest CW.

He, and his 'elites', 'ruled' Tannerman OUT,(crecheman) but his 'superiors' have ruled firmly Tannerman back IN!

Now you know WHY the McCanns were 'allowed' to keep Tannerman, despite Grange's 'attempts' to eliminate him, on their website, all this time!

Who is AR?

Imo, a complete muppet!

Still, he'll be gone shortly, retirement, and he wouldn't have solved the 'crime of the century' and the next deliberately CHOSEN, (the McCanns and their friends never done it, guv) 'special one' DCI, will take his place.

He's been 'played' but he's the only one that can't see it!

And he, and his 'elites' didn't even 'see' THIS coming!

Still, there is an 'upside' for him, i suppose.

He MIGHT get a final trip to Portugal finest Pizzaria and be able to top up on his duty 'free's' IF the libel case resumes before he 'retires' by way of 'questioning' his new 'suspects' in Portugal, a few days before resumption of his 'clients' libel claim.

Fingers crossed, Andy?