Re: CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

by Guest 17.11.13 11:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Tony, I don't think the Police name people who are helping an investigation i.e. witnesses, for two reasons:

a) In some cases it could lead to intimidation and reprisals and could be dangerous

b) It could jeopardise the investigation

REPLY: But Redwood has done all but name Martin Smith, hasn't he? Irish family...10.00pm...near the beach..carrying a young blonde girl...

For the same reason they never name suspects...unless they are a danger to the public.

REPLY: Que? Every day in this country we get news items which start: "A man has been arretsed on suspicion of..." Frequently, though by no means always, they are identified by the police in such a way that the media can publish the names.

In the Stuart Hall case, it was: "An 83-year-old man has been arrested at an address in Wilmslow, Cheshire on suspicion of..."

Minutes later, the media told the world: 'Stuart arrested on child sex charges'

Yes AFTER they have been arrested, not before.

by Guest 17.11.13 12:50

I always thought it was illegal to name people before they have been charged with any offence but that has certainly fallen by the wayside now.

by jeanmonroe 17.11.13 12:52

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03k2gbr

UPDATE due to be screened.

A day AFTER the LAST (?) libel 'trial' date in Lisbon.

so, imo, if it goes 'pear shaped' on the 27th trial date, then the BBC will probably put out 'what about this new sighting of abductor'

Will Redwood be on the 'update' programme?

28/11/2013
Not currently available on BBC iPlayer
Duration: 1 hour

The team are live with Britain's biggest unsolved cases including, following a special appeal, the latest developments in the Madeleine McCann investigation.

eta: BBC 'not' now SAYING 'the latest developments in the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann' BUT using the words 'the Madeleine McCann INVESTIGATION'

Maybe someone at the BBC DID read our 'comments' after all!

by tasprin 17.11.13 13:18

It all seems so co-ordinated:

Libel trial: McCann witnesses - very poor indeed.

BBC Crimewatch: A dishonest and misleading "reconstruction" which omitted David Payne who, according to official police statements, was the last person, apart from her parents, to see Madeleine. And Scotland Yard's "new" e-fits.

Sunday Times: McCanns 5-year suppression of Oakley report and "crucial" e-fits.

Tractorman: The dead patsy - ran long enough to bury the e-fit controversy.

Last day of libel trial: McCanns and Amaral to have their say.

BBC Crimewatch: Update

by Bishop Brennan 17.11.13 13:27

tasprin wrote:It all seems so co-ordinated:

Libel trial: McCann witnesses - very poor indeed.

BBC Crimewatch: A dishonest and misleading "reconstruction" which omitted David Payne who, according to official police statements, was the last person, apart from her parents, to see Madeleine. And Scotland Yard's "new" e-fits.

Sunday Times: McCanns 5-year suppression of Oakley report and "crucial" e-fits.

Tractorman: The dead patsy - ran long enough to bury the e-fit controversy.

Last day of libel trial: McCanns and Amaral to have their say.

BBC Crimewatch: Update

That's what happens when you have a vast fund of cash, and have hired top lawyers and PR advisors... You have to say they are earning their money. Credit to them.

by russiandoll 17.11.13 14:31

Am not sure if the Smiths being non- UK citizens is pertinent. How far were they deemed entitled to privacy given the newsworthiness of their sighting or maybe because of law, were not to be identified by name by the POLICE, [media can rummage for info but police must follow a strict set of procedures ?]
It is a matter for speculation whether Redwood was
being deliberately ambiguous [ and if so, where is the proof of his motives being not good?]
simply being unclear in a natural resort to pronouns
guile then or a lack of clarity with a simple decision not to repeat a name and to refer to the family members by the word witnesses.

without a ref to any other parties, most reasonable people would believe the e fits were made by 2 of the Smiths.
maybe that was cunning.. they did not contribute to the e-fits but Redwood intended a belief that they did
maybe they did contribute and so Redwood was telling the truth.

Maybe there were 2 different witnesses not known about before and if that is the case, then they could not be named as the Smiths and that is very interesting.

We will have to agree to differ on this Tony because without proof I will not be saying anything to slur Redwood's reputation and will believe for now that if there is any silence or ambiguity from him, his motives are good, not bad ...and that he was telling the truth about fighting for Maddie.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 14:47

russiandoll wrote:It is a matter for speculation whether Redwood was being deliberately ambiguous

So we are now agreed that he was ambiguous. Let's not get to deeply into why he was

simply being unclear in a natural resort to pronouns...or a lack of clarity...

Maybe

...without a reference to any other parties, most reasonable people would believe the e-fits were made by 2 of the Smiths

I agree 100% with that statement

maybe that was cunning...they did not contribute to the e-fits but Redwood intended a belief that they did

IMO that would amount to deliberate deception

maybe they did contribute...

After not seeing his face because the child (so they say) was hiding his face, and/or because he 'had his head down', it was dark and there was poor lighting, and in Martin Smith's case he had gone out to dinner and Kelly's Bar without his glasses on

Maybe there were 2 different witnesses not known about before and if that is the case, then they could not be named as the Smiths and that is very interesting.

The why does he not say: 'Two other witnesses..."

We will have to agree to differ on this Tony because without proof I will not be saying anything to slur Redwood's reputation...

We already IMO have a great number of indications about Redwood from his actions and omissions to date

...and that he was telling the truth about fighting for Maddie

His terms of appointment from David Cameron, as stated on the record by his spokesman on 12 May 2011, were - quote: "To help the family"

by SixMillionQuid 17.11.13 14:51

russiandoll wrote: Maybe there were 2 different witnesses not known about before and if that is the case, then they could not be named as the Smiths and that is very interesting.

He wasn't referring to any other witnesses other than the Irish family and as we know three of them have made statements.

by thetruthbeknown 17.11.13 14:53

What is the 'proper' procedure for doing efits? I remember reading that the McCanns and a PI had drawn up the Tannerman one. Was just wondering how it is usually done? Would the person who actually sighted the person need to be present, or could it be drawn up by others using a description in statements etc?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 15:45

thetruthbeknown wrote:What is the 'proper' procedure for doing efits? I remember reading that the McCanns and a PI had drawn up the Tannerman one.

Just to set the record straight here.

1. Jane Tanner's sighting was on the TWO different timelines written out by Russell O'Brien on the cover ripped off the Sainsburys Activity Sticker Book belonging to Madeleine McCann - and handed to police between 11.00pm and midnight that evening

2. Dr Kate McCann claimed not to know about that sighting 24 hours later

3. The Portuguese Police thought it was a fabrication from Day One

4. The first we knew about it was statements released 22 days later, on 25 May, by the Portuguese Police and Dr Gerald McCann

5. The description given by them was very vague

6. Jane Tanner had told police on 13 May that the man she said she saw on 3 May was Robert Murat (she later changed her mind)

7. The artist's sketch in this case was done by Melissa Little, claimed to be 'an F.B.I.-trained forensic artist', and arranged and paid for by Brian Kennedy/the McCann Team

8. It wasn't released until late October 2007, nearly 6 months after the event, which made it valueless

9. As Tanner says she didn't see his face, there was no face on the sketch

10. Just 3 months after this, Tanner said that her man looked like 'monsterman'/'Cooperman', who had a moustache and straggly hair

11. Redwood has now produced a photograph - yes! - a photograph of a man wearing the same kind of clothes he was wearing on holiday - and who's kept his girl's pyjamas she was wearing that night, and who says he was exactly like Tannerman - walking back from his night creche at 9.15pm exactly on 3 May 2007

by Guest 17.11.13 15:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

So we are now agreed that he was ambiguous. Let's not get to deeply into why he was

I could guess at why, but if I explained in isolation people would think I was insane. Really need to draft the whole theory. People can think I'm insane after that instead.

by Guest 17.11.13 15:50

Tony Bennett wrote:

His terms of appointment from David Cameron, as stated on the record by his spokesman on 12 May 2011, were - quote: "To help the family"

Do you ever think that even the McCanns are occasionally bewildered by the amount of support they receive from friends in high places? I reckon they probably are, but it's a bit like having a wobbly tooth - they don't want to probe it too carefully in case it falls out.

by noddy100 17.11.13 16:09

The timeline written on book cover inc tanner man so they must have known about it before police came so less than an hour?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 16:22

noddy100 wrote:The timeline written on book cover inc tanner man so they must have known about it before police came so less than an hour?

If you look at Tanner's early statements, she says that it didn't occur to her at first that her 'sighting' might be the abductor - and then, that even when it did, she didn't want to tell Kate about it as it might upset her.

But it appears, as clear as anything, on the two timelines.

What neither Tanner nor the McCanns nor any of the Tapas 7 have told us is:

How did the information proceed from Jane Tanner's memory bank to Russell O'Brien he wrote her claimed sighting down twice on Madeleine's sticker book when (or before) the police arrived?

Actually, that question includes an assumption - namely that Tanner had 'information'.

It ought to be rephrased, as follows:

Why did Russell O'Brien write her claimed sighting down twice on Madeleine's sticker book when (or before) the police arrived?

by notlongnow 17.11.13 16:32

....or why were they even writing a timeline and not looking for maddie?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 16:33

notlongnow wrote:....or why were they even writing a timeline and not looking for maddie?

Yes, I concede.

A much better question.

by Mirage 17.11.13 17:11

Not to mention Jane Tanner letting everyone run off in the opposite direction of the "abductor". But here is where AR stepped in and gently coaxed her to tell her story from the beginning, exactly as it happened. Point zero.

Just imagine the fight that woman must have put up against the disinhibiting effects of alcohol. She must have been repeating to herself "I must not let Kate know I've seen the abductor" until her head hurt. At all costs she had to protect Kate's feelings. Madeleine's can wait, she thought. She's quite capable of looking after herself.

Come on Janie girl, think about it, she's been looking after herself all week... and those two tiny tots as well. Besides, she'll wake up in a minute and give this man her tuppence worth.

Look at Kate. She's a wreck. I don't think it would be a good idea for us all to give the impression we know anything at this stage. The group know I've seen something. Thank God I didn't drop myself in it and tell them which way he actually went. At least we can all act natural and run about like headless chickens for a while, give the impression we're doing something constructive. That way no one will be any the wiser. I think if we run away from the beach area that would be a crumb of comfort. Actually catching the abductor could finish her off, the way she is at the moment, especially if he's got her anywhere near the water.

Tomorrow, when she's calmed down and maybe grabbed some rest, I can broach the subject ever so gently. Once I've explained I was only acting in her best interests I know she won't blame me. Forever friends - I just know that's what she'll say.

Now where was I? Err, hmm, you know I don't really,, I mean, I know at the moment. I suppose you're thinking I'm a fantasist but, you know, err, well, it's like I've just lost my train of thought sort of, you know.

........ And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.

by Guest 17.11.13 17:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
notlongnow wrote:....or why were they even writing a timeline and not looking for maddie?
Yes, I concede.

A much better question.

And it is certainly strange that they were adding JTs sighting to a timeline before anyone had really questioned her about it.
They certainly didn't know where it was she had seen him. Because in her Rog she states that the first time she showed anyone was at 3am the following night (5th), after returning from giving her statement.
She is adament in her statement that she told RO and then FP, and then it all gets very vague until she is brought to speak to the GNR at around 3 am (4th).
Which is the first time she tells GM.

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 17:38

Spot on Mirage.

This 'I didn't tell anyone the single most important piece of information that would give us a chance of finding Madeleine until Matthew err...wrote it on the two timelines around 10pm...err until I told Gerry in the middle of the night...err until he told Kate when they were looking in bins the next morning' story has always been the biggest flag for me.

If we were talking about some tiny detail whose importance might not have been immediately evident to Jane or the group or Gerry, then perhaps.

But a stranger carrying away a child from where, ahem, a child was "taken" and only minutes before she was discovered to have been "taken"?

It's more than ludicrous.

[Sorry about bold italics, blame the iPhone! ]

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 17:40

Mirage wrote: And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.

I insist on accuracy.

He didn't 'return to point zero', either with Jane Tanner or Old Mother Hubbard.

No, he drew everything back to zero, which, IMO, is a lot more dififcult.

He drew everything back to zero.

Drew.

Everything.

Here's the actual quote:

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

Mind you, one wonders if he was talking to Tanner, if you look at this bit:

"...try and sort of take everything back..."

Actually, drawing everything back to zero and beginning at the beginning is not exactly new.

It put me in mind of a song sung by Julie Andrews a long time ago.

It began with these profound words of eternal wisdom:

"Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start..." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RW3nDRmu6k

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 17:55

Quoting Mary Poppins. You're OK by me.

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 17:56

Quoting Mary Poppins. You're OK by me.

by russiandoll 17.11.13 17:58

I do not get your point Tony. Not at all. Could you please explain the difference ?

by Guest 17.11.13 18:04

So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?
And became a little confused and hesitant not because she is drippy but because no one seemed to be taking this seriously, until the GNR arrived. Because she was not party to the original script.
There was then a panic amongst the others to include this sighting now into the timeline of checks. Because it wasn't going to go away.

She doesn't hide the fact that she doesn't get on too well with GM in her Rog.

by **Hobs** 17.11.13 18:22

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

What they sought to do doesn't tell us it was what they did

To try means to attempt it doesn't say they succeeded.
Where is the beginning for him, the start of the review or the start of the investigation?
He doesn't tell us so i can't assume.
What does zero mean to him if it isn't the beginning?
He tells us it is zero if we like, not that it is zero to him.
Beginning is mentioned twice making it sensitive.
Note the qualifiers he uses which weaken his statements.
Try, which is mentioned twice and sort of.
Sort of doesn't mean they did and if they can't tell us they took it back to the beginning. i can't do it for him.
Order is important, re-analyse then re-assess.
What is the everything they are re-analysing and re-assessing?
He doesn't tell us so i can't assume.
Does the everything include the beginning or zero and when are these points?

Note the dropped pronoun in relation to accepting nothing.
If he can't take ownership i can't do it for him.

If this investigation is to start from the beginning does it mean from the day Maddie vanished?
Some time before then?
Some point after then?

If he is starting from the beginning, zero if we like, then he has to question the mccanns, the tapas 7, Robert Murat and all the witnesses who were present that week plus all those who came into contact with the mccann's after may 3 as they may have seen or heard something untoward, noticed a change in behavior or language, come across something that seemed odd, unexpected.
Family members who know them would notice anything strange or different.

He would then also need to have all the family's medical records to see if there were any health problems ( coloboma can have health issues and especially since Maddies was described by parents as almost perfect/almost perfectly formed)
Number of cycles needed etc.

The result of this could indicate a motive as well as a suspect.

The IVF clinics would need to hand over the records of the mccann's to show the genetic relationship between the parents and the children and Maddie and the siblings.
The results of this could indicate a motive and or/suspect

Bank records going back a 5 years would show a pattern in relation in income and outgoings, how they were managing, how they could afford the cost of IVF and again number of cycles needed

Records for 2007 would show if they were in financial difficulty and how they paid for their vacations.
Financial records for the tapas 7 would also be required for at least a couple of years as well to see what was coming in and going out.

DNA samples from the mccann family and the taps7 and their families must also be taken.

Physical evidence such as clothing, cuddlecat and even the hire car if it is still around should be re tested, the apartment even though is is now 6 years past should be retested and luminol or similar should be used, it would still reveal blood etc even after clean up.
The same goes for the car if still available.

The results from the above will point them in the right direction if they are starting this case as new and fresh.

CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

Is DCI Andy Redwood sincere in believing the Smiths were capable of providing two efits of the man they said they saw?