Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.
There are two choices:-
Whitewash ? or Breaking the Theory of Abduction.
If ‘Whitewash’, (and the police, govt., judiciary, priesthood, people in high and/or controlling places etc.) have given us more than enough examples of corruption at the highest levels.
With so much distrust now in the ‘establishment’ with daily evidence of dishonesty, concealing of crimes, laws introduced and fixed to protect the guilty and imprison the innocent, that we could easily believe that this is a long drawn out effort to cover up for some high level crime, to be concealed at all costs.
And, I still do not dismiss this as a truly valid possibility.
If however, the whole McC case has hinged upon the ‘theory of abduction’, forced home from the ‘get go’, by those most forceful of individuals, Kate and Gerry McCann, (and their direct family on both sides) then ‘removing’ the ‘abduction possibilities', takes the ‘base’ of their defense out.
This then leaves the whole investigation free to consider the ‘other’ possibilities.
FACT.
Madeleine appears to have disappeared. She appeared to go on holiday with her family, and she definitely did not return from that family holiday with her family.
So where is she? What happened to her?
By going back to Zero, and considering it as if it were an abduction that took place on British soil, it has now become possible that an Abduction did NOT take place.
Jane’s egg-man, whose timing so restricted the 'abduction time' to a mere couple of implausible minutes, was after all, an honest citizen going about his legitimate ‘post crèche, taking child back home’ business.
The other ‘abductor’, seen in the PJ files by the Smiths, and always ignored, dismissed or hurriedly brushed aside by the McCs, seems to focus on Gerry.
This then is NOT an abduction, but a parent concealing a crime, or attempting to distract people from investigating a scenario that is NOT an abduction.
If another ‘person with child’ is identified, it might well be dismissed as another honest citizen taking his child legitimately back home after crèche baby-sitting.
So, with no evidence now, for abduction, we are forced to look at the other possibilities and evidence.
The dogs indicated, and blood was found, which matched Madeleine’s.
The Last photo (the pool photo) as referred to by both Gerry in video interview, and by Kate in her book, is no longer accepted as ‘the last photo’ by the police investigation.
The police are questioning the TRUTH of the ‘last photo’ claim by the parents.
Our work on the analysis of photos- highlighting the photo-shopping and inconsistencies- has born fruit. Well done ‘all posters’.
Now that the intransigent parents have been disarmed of their one and only ‘claim’ that the child was taken by an ‘outsider’ the light focuses back on them and the evidence accumulated from the PJ files, the statements, the forensics etc.
The ON-GOING Scotland Yard investigation, the enormous CrimeWatch global publicity, just go to DISPROVE the McCs libel claim against Gonçalo Amaral.
A gift of pure, clean, fresh air for Gonçalo, at a time when he most needs it, BEFORE his case has been finally decided upon.
So, we now see the McCs, and their entourage, Pinky to boot, with the rug pulled out from under their feet.
We see Gonçalo Amaral vindicated.
The Portuguese judge does not look like a ‘walk-over’ this time.
The McCs have become denuded of their sole claim to protection, the abduction by an outside force, bringing the focus back where it was at the beginning when the Diplomats present in PdL voiced their early day fears that the McCs were not as ‘kosher’ as they were making themselves out to be.
David Cameron now publicly  ‘supports’ the MET/SY
Andy Redwood speaks of 'Mr. and Mrs. McCann', not 'Kate and Gerry'.
Britain DID once boast, one of the most respectable Police Forces in the world.
We have seen police corruption occurring, right up to the highest levels, but we have also seen the ‘true’ police force as determined, perceptive, wily, canny, and capable of breaking cases open to bring the true perpetrators to trial.
If this were to be a whitewash, it could have been dealt with a long time ago. The Kelly case is still not acceptably resolved, nor are many others, where politics collide with truth.
If it is one great big social experiment, to detect people’s reactions and abilities/ determination to keep lines of communication open when the press, media and broadcasting are being controlled for propaganda purposes only, then this has shown that the ‘transmission and search for truth’ cannot be suppressed any more than water will not find its way out of a leaking vessel.
If however, AR has been as canny as we would hope our TOP policeman to be, taking it back to zero, debunking the premise upon which the McCs place their defense, then perhaps this is now a worthy operation.
I am impressed that even during the last few days of hype and hope, our own posters have continued to keep threads going which are still investigating any and every possible bit of information, analysing, putting things together, to try to find out what happened to Madeleine.
Above all, I am certain that the search for Justice for Madeleine will not stop here.
With or without the help of AR/SY, she will have the justice and respect she so tragically deserves.
I have the faint belief that the scenario has now been opened up, not closed.

I am glad to read your post, you echo my beliefs and I was going to write similar. Thank you for making that unnecessary!

 I am confused about one issue, the tennis photo, confusion arising from differing media reports when traling CW.
 
 It was taken 6pm May 3rd.

 CW   showed a clip of the Maddie and parents on the courts, with no ref to a date.

 They showed poolside activity and a voiceover from Mcs, and they mentioned afternoon of 3rd iirc for the sun and Gerry with the kids.
 There was mention of Maddie in the pool and a clip of mother and child on arrival day.

 The cover up would be so filthy deep it is horrific to contemplate.

 but I am not rejecting it because I am naïve, I simply find it improbable

 so I am left with a social experiment to gauge what it takes to get apathetic masses bogged down in trivia off our butts, perhaps not rioting in the streets,, but in this case writing to media and the police.

 or the net is closing in and SY know, they KNOW who they are after.

could   be  breaking  the  theory of abduction [just posted this on another  thread]



IMO the only sense i can make of last nights C W...is there is something  behind it  all...an ulterior  motive...
there is  not much difference between a planned abduction...and disturbing a  burglar [one counteracts  the  other]...


a new witness conveniently  after six years ...walking the wrong  way from the  creche...
but it  could have been a  good ploy to get rid of j/t .sighting.[a lot  of people beleive abduction theory because of this]...
the efit and the  smith sighting was brought  in  with a lot of scenarios  [to many]
the efit did  look like GM............i think it was a very clever trap....


they are suppose  to  be a crack team....i think it was very clever ...they put that program out with 0% blame on k  g mcc [not  one thing to come back at themas biast] no  DNA mentioned dogs etc but they will know about  it

they have been involved with  the Portuguese police ...we  all know who the efit looks like ...and what the smiths said..
the only  sense i  can  make of last night CW......IS A TRAP DOOR HAS BEEN LEFT OPEN ..AND VERY SOON SOME ONE IS GOING TO WALK RIGHT IN  IT ...

will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

 I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

 2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.

If you are a totally uncritical Pro
then
Madeleine NOT in bed PLUS man seen taking child away from the apartment EQUALS Abduction

But now you have
Madeleine NOT in bed.     Which equals            Madeleine not in bed

russiandoll wrote:will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

 I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

 2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.

I agree, the alarm had been raised by then and the tapas men were out searching.

It's a fact the Smiths sighting HAS to be ruled out, if that man doesn't come forward then SY have their answer.....

Not only did SY manage to find Tanners made up bundleman   but Gerry had to go on primetime TV and ask for help to trace a man he knows the Smiths identified as HIM.

Interesting! 

I still maintain if this was going to be a whitewash it would have not got to this stage.  But this week SY have rubbished the timelines, told us the last photo was a lie, mentioned they are looking into all mobile activity so l think this is going in the right direction.

A great piece, Bobbin, and good to read.  I have woken up this morning feeling more positive.  I just sense there is more analysis taking place with SY than we might think. Lets hope so, to say the least.

margaret wrote:

russiandoll wrote:will re watch CW after some work then fresh air.

 I had almost forgotten the sighting I had never heard of before and need to check what AR said about the time.

 2 men speaking in a nearby street who went silent when they saw the witness to their talk.

I agree, the alarm had been raised by then and the tapas men were out searching.

It's a fact the Smiths sighting HAS to be ruled out, if that man doesn't come forward then SY have their answer.....

Not only did SY manage to find Tanners made up bundleman   but Gerry had to go on primetime TV and ask for help to trace a man he knows the Smiths identified as HIM.

Interesting! 

I still maintain if this was going to be a whitewash it would have not got to this stage.  But this week SY have rubbished the timelines, told us the last photo was a lie, mentioned they are looking into all mobile activity so l think this is going in the right direction.

  iirc the media claimed the tennis court the last photo, the police did  not mention any photos at all? will re watch CW later

How I wish all this were so but regrettably other than wishful thinking I can't think of anything that Redwood has done or said in the last two and a half years that suggests that this is all part of a devilish fiendish plan. He has done an awful lot, however to suggest either that he's a fool or that he is simply fulfilling the terms of his brief to investigate an abduction and nothing else.

As long as an innocent Smithman doesn't identify himself and his own daughter, he will now have a permanent place in the myth as the possible abductor and there will be an even greater time frame within which he could have made the daring snatch. The McCanns and Redwood will exploit this relentlessly. When Redwood said he was going back to zero he meant that he was going to ignore all the evidence which is exactly what he has done and will no doubt continue to do. The idea that SY are all as bright as buttons and have the integrity of a saint is one that I have yet to be convinced of.

But as I say, I hope that I am wrong and you are right.

and we need to accept uncritically that mistaken man had one set of clothes on holiday and his child one pair of pjs.

 How in hell could he recall what he and his child wore at a specific time, on a specific day, YEARS AGO?

 and accept that JT could see the detail she claimed.

 which bizarrely matched a description of what an abducted child would be carried away in soon afterwards!

I haven't watched CW yet, I had to record it. Is it worth watching?

What CW and the media saturation we had yesterday noticeably has done is pick the scab off. 

K & G are now just about the only topic of conversation doing the rounds locally. There is a huge amount of anger directed at the pair and it's quite scary that the kindest, gentlest, wouldn't harm a fly people I know turn almost incoherent with rage at the mere mention of their names. 

If it's like this at a local level, the tidal wave of revulsion at a national and even worldwide level must be overwhelming.

I just had a quick peek at twitter and there are lots of new faces on #mccann and they're all critical.

Oh dear 

Great post Bobbin, I'm an optimist and will go with you on this one. I posted the following on the CW thread as I believe it is where the focus of the CW programme was at. I do have the nagging doubt I mention in the post but then something else. I wonder why SY would eventually rubbish the BBC CW and presenters as that part seemed very pro-Mccann, this is when our police teams are often reliant on their professional and close working relationship with CW to help solve so many crimes?

Re: CRIMEWATCH ON BBC ***DISCUSSION****
  Shrike Today at 9:21 am


I might be naive but I would like to think that SY are trying to get more people to come forward with independent sightings of a person wearing a particular style of trouser. As we all know, and as I am sure SY know, the beige, cotton trousers were described in all statements and Mrs Smith went on to further describe the button style (on the legs). This, to me, is a very distinctive style that I have rarely seen. We, and SY, also are fully aware that GM owned a pair of these style of trousers at the time as seen in several photos of him. It is also known that there was a pair of beige trousers seen on the bed in one of the photos taken of the apartment soon after the incident (although I'm not sure if the buttons could be seen). The person descriptions also seem to fit GM and SY know that Mr Smith was 60-80% sure it was GM he saw due to the mannerisms. When light is a little poor I believe that we tend to see those things that stand out, not the very small details of personal ID, but those relating to styles and mannerisms. The man notices his mannerisms, the woman notices the style (maybe).

As it stands, SY have one set of Smith statements, i.e. from persons independent of the T9, relating to the sighting that night, backed up further by a later statement about the mannerisms of GM when leaving the plane at East Midlands holding one of the twins. As it stands that is probably not enough to base a case on but if they if they can get other witnesses to corroborate what GM was wearing on that holiday, or even on the night, and dismiss other persons because they did not own this style of clothing then they are much further down the line. I think it important that Redwood said nothing specific about the clothing as he wants independent persons to report this from their memory. When they call in then maybe there will be a question, "do you remember anything specific about the clothing?".

I just don't get how the whole focus of SY's presentation on CW was on this 10pm sighting. What we saw with the McCanns and the other bits of the recon were just what we all expected and, of course, they would be as the McCanns were there. But the big thing is what Redwood had to say stressing the sighting, which the McCanns have been dismissing all these years because their official JT sighting made that conveniently unlikely. And we all know what has now happened to JT's account of things.

SY also have the eFITs which we understand from news this morning were held back in the McCanns' PI files -they have a likeness to GM and I doubt they would have wanted this in the public domain to back up the Smith's statements.

If SY use this sighting and dismiss any relevance to the links with GM then they are laughing in the face of all of the persons who know so much about this case including GA and the PJ. If they do, that will be the undoing of all of this because too much is known and accessible.

On a final note though, I still have that nagging thought in the back of my head. The PJ (?) defence witness at the libel trial stated in court that SY were only looking at the abduction thoery. That is worrying unless SY are throwing the Portuguese a red herring or, if indeed, the PJ and SY are working together to throw us all, and especially the McCanns, a red herring. However, I wouldn't mind a few Guinesses with the Smith family tonight and to hear what they might have to say (as long as they have not been "got at").

So far, we as the general public are expected to discount entirely the PJ files, with no reference to them, no analysis, no apology for omissions.  Energetically, though, if the balance of public opinion shifts through the reading and searches that people make individually, and discuss, then the energy balance may push through to other conclusions and questions as inevitable.  Not quick but it could happen.  The energy in terms of scepticism has I believe shifted dramatically overnight in the public domain.

That may be a tad optimistic, but it may have a grain of truth to it too.

russiandoll wrote:  iirc the media claimed the tennis court the last photo, the police did  not mention any photos at all? will re watch CW later

No on CW last night nothing was said about the last photo - apart from Kate saying they took the poolside one that afternoon - the last photo and the mobile phone info had been said in the media this week, it wasn't on CW, that's why l said 'this week'.

Sky News are saying there is a special programme tonight at 8.30 pm on Sky.  DCI Redwood also said in interview that he hopes to work with the Portuguese police in a re-opening of the case.  I think he said something to the effect that there could be 'a sharing of information'.

Apparently there was a video camera in the vicinity of the Smith sighting but it wasn't checked.

Hmmm - I bet it wasn't working either as always seems to happen with staged events.

Searcher wrote:Sky News are saying there is a special programme tonight at 8.30 pm on Sky.  DCI Redwood also said in interview that he hopes to work with the Portuguese police in a re-opening of the case.  I think he said something to the effect that there could be 'a sharing of information'.

Apparently there was a video camera in the vicinity of the Smith sighting but it wasn't checked.

I think it was checked, but its contents appeared to have been whooshed almost immediately after the walkabout
Correct me if I'm wrong please

Poe wrote:I haven't watched CW yet, I had to record it. Is it worth watching?

What CW and the media saturation we had yesterday noticeably has done is pick the scab off. 

K & G are now just about the only topic of conversation doing the rounds locally. There is a huge amount of anger directed at the pair and it's quite scary that the kindest, gentlest, wouldn't harm a fly people I know turn almost incoherent with rage at the mere mention of their names. 

If it's like this at a local level, the tidal wave of revulsion at a national and even worldwide level must be overwhelming.

I just had a quick peek at twitter and there are lots of new faces on #mccann and they're all critical.

Oh dear 

Until last Monday morning, I too was one of the many completely ignorant of so much of this case (and no doubt the vast majority so). Do I mean case? The end to this innocent child's 'life'.

Like most, I'd heard of Maddie back in 2007... our family holiday that August was just along the coast... and whilst mildly interested, never really gave much time to what appeared to be a 'circus' post September 2007. Only when reading an article last week, by chance, advertising last night's CW programme did I find myself at the mccannfiles site.

I like to consider myself 'open minded'... unbiased... but in reality, after spending the last seven days reading and re-reading, and watching related interviews, documentaries (a number of which I was directed to from here... too many to thank individually) ... and with no 'investigative' training, no special skills in this field whatsoever... believe there is more than enough 'doubt' re the abduction theory to consider Maddie's parents know a hell of a lot more than they have revealed to date. So what do nearly 40 of Britain's finest, with the best part of 1,000 years of experience believe (not to mention the Portuguese)?

IMHO SY have not ruled out Gerry and Kate.

I believe (hope) AR's '... taking it back to zero..' is his way of telling the public that everything is up for grabs. It's virtually a clean sheet approach. And last night's CW, with several lines of enquiry being a demonstration of this... but not JT's 'night creche' man. The so called revelation which seemed to be 'casually' explained away... too casual maybe? (as many have discussed on the other thread)

AR, to me, came across as being very specific with his words, again emphasizing a '...professional and I have an open mind...' approach. So given the Smith family's sightings, has AR considered speaking to Gerry? Is it the fact the two efits are so different, he needs a second (or 10th?) or sighting?

Then of course, there's the question. Could CW have presented a less 'softly-softly' approach... ie gone for the jugular? Yes. But would they? Again IMHO, one has to consider who AR is reporting to, effectively Cameron. Can you imagine AR and May going into Cameron's office and saying we're 95% certain of....? Cameron points to the array of dailies on his desk which carry headlines clinging to the belief 'Maddie's parents are the next best thing to royalty'... he looks at the calendar on the wall with May 2015 circled in red (do I mean blue) and tells them to come back when they the photos.

Maybe the most important phrase uttered by AR was his last at the end of the CW 'update' '... doing it for Maddie...'

Sky News reporter (Mark Williams Thomas - apologies if that is not correct name) - just said that this may not have been a planned abduction.  Walking through a busy area with bars and pubs with a child in one's arms would not seem the best option in a planned abduction, when the main road nearby would be the other more likely option.  On that basis he thought an opportunistic taking more likely.

What occurs to me as interesting is that the Smith sighting - hardly known about beyond the net, one could say - has suddenly shot to prominence in the public domain.

Searcher wrote:On that basis he thought an opportunistic taking more likely.

"Hey I'm in the room.... what can I take?" 

No abduction, planned or unplanned, would result in a man wandering round with a sleeping child in his arms.

The man is an arse.

Has AR been very clever?

At this point I don't think he could have done anything else, whatever your views are on his ultimate goal.

He still has the McCanns 'onside', praising the SY 'review', even though he has removed one of their main planks (how apt a description).

He is either going to prove himself a proper copper, and with it bring the dastardly duo to justice, or he is going to fully replace that plank with one infinitely thicker.

We shall see.

When I put this post up this morning it was with a 'clear' mind from a night's sleep. It has taken me 4 hours to read the other thread. Some really good observations and I didn't think there'd be any interest here.
However, some really interesting points there. Joyce(****) (sorry can't remember your numbers Joyce) mentioned the McCs PIs withheld photofits for some years.
Interesting.
1. When SY got the files from Metodo 3 and these PIs, it must have come as a surprise to the McCs who would not have imagined that they would have been paying for private/ secretly horded stuff which, following their nagging of David Cameron to 'review' the case, would then come under SY view and become public.
Is that a home goal ?
2. When the McCs and Tapas 7 were spouting their drivel statements, did they know enough about Portuguese law, to know that their garbled crap would also be published when the files would be released, once the case was 'Shelved'.
Is that another home goal ?
3. I have always wondered why Gerry denied having seen Jane. He could have taken the middle road between 'yes he did see her' and 'no he didn't see her' by saying that he was so engrossed with talking tennis strides with Jez that he honestly didn't notice her going by.
But, he claimed he didn't see her. Therefore, the 'abductor sighting' that Jane was handing to Gerry as a pure alibi has been destroyed, by Gerry HIMSELF.
Is this not one of the most astonishing home goals ever ?
Perhaps Jane did see someone. That someone may not have come forward because the time was claimed for 9.15. Perhaps Jane had seen someone a lot earlier, when Jez first started out and had seen Jane in the car park looking at 5A. There was talk right at the beginning, info whooshed, that Jez had thought Gerry was near shutters, fiddling.
Perhaps the guy with 'tigger's possible hot dinner wrapped in blanket'  , or even his own child, being out, NOT at 9.15, did not think it was him, so did not know that it was him who was meant to come forward.
Whichever way it is, AR's ELIMINATING Jane's abductor puts the picture fully into the public domain, being the hugely advertised 'revelation' that now shows the case against Gonçalo is flawed, since the search for Madeleine has escalated and not shrunken, since the publishing of his book.
It also destroys the ONLY obstacle to searching different avenues of investigation.
This could have been a whitewash, (and we know all too sadly that corruption is RIFE) but I fail to see at this moment, how shifting the focus onto the Smith sighting which via Martin Smith's statement suggested 60% to 80% certainty that it was Gerry McCann with 'a child', and whose Buttoned trousers were noted by another independent witness at the street scene, then on Gerry's bed, as if thrown down in a rush, and then in further photographs, being worn by Gerry McCann.
If this is a whitewash, it's not really helping to take the 'spotlight' off Gerry McCann is it?

DIBarlow wrote:Has AR been very clever?

At this point I don't think he could have done anything else, whatever your views are on his ultimate goal.

He still has the McCanns 'onside', praising the SY 'review', even though he has removed one of their main planks (how apt a description).

He is either going to prove himself a proper copper, and with it bring the dastardly duo to justice, or he is going to fully replace that plank with one infinitely thicker.

We shall see.

Well realistically we were never going to see the McCanns accused on-screen and arrested on the spot. That kind of thing rarely happens outside of TV dramas and after the Lord McAlpine fiasco the BBC are probably going to be more careful about on-screens accusations anyway.  Given that using the Tanner sighting (at the McCann's insistence) and ignoring the Irish sighting derailed the original Crimewatch show I think he has done the right thing to redress the balance, to see if this might bring in more evidence which might indeed trap an abductor or perhaps someone closer to home. 

Yet the elephant in the room is this - the sighting by the Irish couple has been more or less common knowledge since the start of the case (well on the internet anyway) so why did the McCanns - who must have known of it - and were supposedly leaving no stone unturned to find their daughter - completely ignore it?

I am not totally sure what that crimewatch farce was last night, but it definitely wasn't "breaking the abduction theory".  The words madeleine was abducted or taken were used numerous times as was the utter lie that the McCanns had been cleared by the PJ.

Then, when I thought it could get no worse, Redwood claims that this had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction and then proceeded to trot out a series of complete red herring photo fits.

The police are 100% in the pockets of the McCanns and their protectors.