McCanns dispute DCI Redwood's dismissal of Tannerman

RD it seems clear to me that either the Met do not care what TM put on their site. It won't affect the course of their investigation.
Or they care very much.
And are watching them very closely as they dig their holes deeper and deeper.
Because lets face it there can be no way that Mr Redwood is going to do an about turn from his great revelation moment and say he was wrong, or just maybe 50:50 it was Tannerman. Not after Crimewatch.
We were all wandering how TM would react to the news of Crecheman. And now we see it. I'm sure SY were wandering what they would do too.
They have come as close as possible to saying that SY are wrong, without actually saying it.
SY are getting a taste of what the PJ have had to put up with.
Why do TM not do the sensible thing and just shut up?
They always have to retrofit the evidence to their story, mislead or outright lie.

dantezebu wrote:RD it seems clear to me that either the Met do not care what TM put on their site. It won't affect the course of their investigation.
Or they care very much.
And are watching them very closely as they dig their holes deeper and deeper.
Because lets face it there can be no way that Mr Redwood is going to do an about turn from his great revelation moment and say he was wrong, or just maybe 50:50 it was Tannerman. Not after Crimewatch.
We were all wandering how TM would react to the news of Crecheman. And now we see it. I'm sure SY were wandering what they would do too.
They have come as close as possible to saying that SY are wrong, without actually saying it.
SY are getting a taste of what the PJ have had to put up with.
Why do TM not do the sensible thing and just shut up?
They always have to retrofit the evidence to their story, mislead or outright lie.

If I didn't know better (or in reality, hope otherwise) I would say that whatever hold the Mcs seem to have over various authority figures also extends to Redwood and SY.

[Dismissive indeed ! ]

 OFM say :  the Met have allowed it.

 It creates confusion.

 OFM are almost certainly telling me the truth.

 The Met also seem to think that confusion is good.

 One of the McCanns stated that confusion is good.

 My opinion :   both camps find confusion is OK, but that does not mean that each has the same  "  WIDER AGENDA" with the confusion.


 I would like to know the OFM opinion of the 1st priority of the Met, as the site's main man is Smithman, on whom there is a RENEWED FOCUS.

 Clarity as elsewhere in their update, a choice of words indicating that focus was on this man at one time, we know from CW that focus for 6 years was mainly on another man at another time and location. Focus clearly now OFF that person and BACK ON the Smith sighting.


 So how was the focus on the wrong man all along and why is there RENEWED focus on another ? Redwood has sorted that, so now it is forget that one and concentrate on another; that was last October.

 The Met site is as clear as day in what it says.

 OFM not, but the Met does not SEEM to care.

 No -one knows why, and that might include the McCanns.

 I wonder who would win in a poker game, Gerry or Poker Face?

 I know who my money would be on, but it is not possible to be certain so I will say confusion is good.


 It is not possible to be certain what the motive of the Met might be for allowing this confusion.
 So look over there has now been changed by Redwood to NO, DON'T ! LOOK OVER HERE.

 and he has allowed the Mcs to say no , look back over there again !

 OFM has said so.

Well, I'm still keeping the faith over here   as this could've been swept under the carpet quietly a long time ago. Since Crimewatch, the interest in this case and the negativity towards the McCann's has increased considerably. How would this make it easier to whitewash??

If the McCann's had SY wrapped around their little finger then why did SY get rid of Gerry's alibi?? Not a very friendly thing to do, shifting the focus straight on to a (hidden for 5 years by the McCs) e-fit identical to Gerry.

We know that the PJ didn't have enough 'hard' evidence to charge them the first time round so making a water-tight case will take time.

Justice works in silence!

ETA P.S. Good on you, Russian Doll for challenging the misinformation on the OFM site   

from twitter : a tweet about how it is no surprise that it was  " look at this guy , not that guy  "  [who was left  lurking in the shadows for 6 years until October 2013 , when a detective let him see daylight at last  ]  together with this..
  I am saying nothing other than this is an interesting photo and that it was either an excellent or a very unfortunate piece of casting for CW. Also interesting for how CW showed a method of carrying the child which accorded with a witness statement, unlike the Mc- documentary which changed it. This actor did not carry a child ACROSS his arms but IN his arms. The police know what was said by Smith and how and why it was altered to suit an agenda.

Tangled Web wrote:
If the McCann's had SY wrapped around their little finger then why did SY get rid of Gerry's alibi?? Not a very friendly thing to do, shifting the focus straight on to a (hidden for 5 years by the McCs) e-fit identical to Gerry.


ETA P.S. Good on you, Russian Doll for challenging the misinformation on the OFM site   

Well I agree wholeheartedly with your last bit.

But I think you're stretching the use of the word "alibi" somewhat. If that really was all that was stopping the finger of suspicion from pointing firmly at Gerry then its demolition should have seen him at least questioned. Has this happened? In reality we don't know. The only thing that can excuse the time and money being consumed by SY is if they are indeed trying to wrap up an enormous criminal conspiracy in one swoop. That's distinctly not the vibe I'm getting though.

How do you interpret what is going on just now Clay? It is certainly intriguing.

 I am guessing, given Redwood's words, demeanour and the Met site, that all they care about is establishing what happened to a little girl.

 He said "  We are fighting for Madeleine McCann " did not include her parents' names and was not with them when he used that very particular verb.

 I believe that outside the investigation, they can get on with smoke and mirrors and the public can speculate over the very basic info the police allow to go public.

But who do TM think is looking at this page? Were there any more people skulking aroung 5a that night that have not been identified or come forward?
It was a very busy corner at 9.15 by all accounts.   
The fact that there are apparently three people that SY want to interview reagrding the night of the 3rd, whom SY do not mind knowing in advance that this is the case, leans more towards witnesses rather than suspects.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was an attempt by TM to get one or more of these people to contact TM to see if they can get any information first, or possibly come to some arrangement with them.

from OFM re Tannerman  sketch

Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us

Have you seen these men? Do you know who they might be?

 I wonder how many of the site supporters have replied

 Yes, Andy Redwood told us all 3 months ago, why are you still asking !

russiandoll wrote:How do you interpret what is going on just now Clay? It is certainly intriguing.

 

Well, as usual, I'm pretty much baffled!

It could be that Redwood is prepared to let go almost anything said or done in the short term because he has the bigger picture and knows that it won't make any difference to the ultimate outcome. However there are certain standards of behaviour and decency that you expect supposedly intelligent people to adhere to and the McCanns have, for me, crossed a line with this website stunt and it is difficult for me to see that not just tolerated but seemingly endorsed, no matter for how short a time it may turn out to be.

The thing that I find most troubling is the niggling doubt it creates that there is some credence to the McCanns version of events, that they possibly are labouring under a terrible miscarriage of perception and might ultimately be vindicated. Where would that leave all of us, as human beings?

Basically, TM can put whatever they want on their own website - it's nothing to do with SY. Why would SY even bother to forbid TM from posting whatever they want? IMO, if TM want to hang themselves by showing up how desperate they are to lend credibility to Jane Tanner's sighting, so be it. I'm sure SY are taking notes.

dantezebu wrote:But who do TM think is looking at this page? Were there any more people skulking aroung 5a that night that have not been identified or come forward?
It was a very busy corner at 9.15 by all accounts.   

SUSAN MOYES (Apartment 5K)

"We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town. We walked back about nine o’clock, round past, erm, the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment. Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine. Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely."

It sounds to me as if the MET are going down the "confusion is good route" too. I'm afraid that has finished me as far as Grange is concerned. There is no intention of arraigning any of the guilty based on that information. And based on other historic cases of high profile offending which are openly discussed on the internet, I concede we are up against a wall of deceit of STASI proportions.

As someone said earlier in this thread, this is what our forefathers gave their lives for. And as if to underline it, I watched The Railway Man at the cinema yesterday. The true story of the brutality many suffered during the war (my uncle included who worked on the Burma Railway and came back weighing under 6 stone with permanent manacle marks on his ankles from a Japanese prisoner of war camp). I also have a wonderful photo of another Uncle -  Fred, who died in the trenches as not much more than a child. He looks just like my daughter.

It is almost unheard of for someone my age to have an uncle who died in WW1 a co-ordinator of the WW1 battle grounds trips told me. I felt I knew Fred personally because my aunt and father spoke of him often. On the last day of my father's life he cried for his brother and expressed the hope he was to be re-united with him at last. I had to console him, and as I did, a direct line was forged between the generations; just as it should be.

Fred was a little telegram messenger boy in 1916 who became so overwhelmed at the telegrams he was delivering of the latest deaths, that he lied about his age and died in 1917 at the age of 17. My daughter took a trip to the WW1 sites last year and laid the first wreath for the family in nearly a century. She cried a good deal. When she arrived back at the coach, she found her students had been given the enlarged photo of my uncle and were sitting in stunned silence. They told her they couldn't believe he looked so young. Although he was their age he looked like a child..

I want to pay homage to the little man here, against the backdrop of this vile case for the purposes of chiascuro. For he is light against dark. He, among many selfless individuals demonstrated what elevated humans are capable of in thought, word and deed.A little vignette of him that I carry in my mind is as follows: When I was about seven my aunt told me he had turned to her one day and said "I am so full of sin". This is the humility, the self-searching, the introspection of a little boy -  the complete antithesis to the derelict behaviour of those twisting and turning truth to serve their own wicked ends. Such people are  light years away from even the genesis of introspection. They are extinguishing their own light and we are watching it go out. Persons without the light of humanity within shrivel and die inside. And it is stamped on their faces but they don't themselves see it.

Going back to the Railway Man. The beatings these men took because of Lomax's ability to set up a simple valve radio receiver so that the men could hear the familiar voices of their homeland, were almost beyond one's ability to watch. The sheer wickedness of humans came in at you from every angle and as I watched I felt as though,Pandora's Box had flown open and all the evils of the world were rushing out at me. At that moment, sitting in the dark of the auditorium, there was no differentiation in my mind between the evil acts I was watching and what I know is going on in this country and being hidden from its citizens.

What a waste, an abject waste of these brave young lives; men who, as they writhed in agony, could never have believed that equally twisted minds would hold sway in their own land only a few generations after their passing. .

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

dantezebu wrote:But who do TM think is looking at this page? Were there any more people skulking aroung 5a that night that have not been identified or come forward?
It was a very busy corner at 9.15 by all accounts.   

SUSAN MOYES (Apartment 5K)
"We went out for a meal about seven o’clock down in the town. We walked back about nine o’clock, round past, erm, the church, round past the supermarket, back to the apartment. Went out on the balcony about quarter past nine. Everywhere was peaceful, everywhere was lovely."

And this is further independent evidence of what we know know about the weather. By late afternoon / early evening the clouds were beginning to clear, and the wind had dropped. By 11pm it was flat calm, and cloudless.
There was NO WIND to slam doors and whoosh curtains. This is very simply a ludicrous fabrication, which as we know was invented a long time later
There was also NO SUN at lunchtime to cause reflections and sweaty brows as in the Last Photo. That is also very clearly a fabrication, though the exact details are less clear

(And yes, Grange, the PJ and Dr Amaral have all the proof they need.)

Mirage wrote:It sounds to me as if the MET are going down the "confusion is good route" too. I'm afraid that has finished me as far as Grange is concerned. There is no intention of arraigning any of the guilty based on that information. And based on other historic cases of high profile offending which are openly discussed on the internet, I concede we are up against a wall of deceit of STASI proportions.

As someone said earlier in this thread, this is what our forefathers gave their lives for. And as if to underline it, I watched The Railway Man at the cinema yesterday. The true story of the brutality many suffered during the war (my uncle included who worked on the Burma Railway and came back weighing under 6 stone with permanent manacle marks on his ankles from a Japanese prisoner of war camp). I also have a wonderful photo of another Uncle -  Fred, who died in the trenches as not much more than a child. He looks just like my daughter.

It is almost unheard of for someone my age to have an uncle who died in WW1 a co-ordinator of the WW1 battle grounds trips told me. I felt I knew Fred personally because my aunt and father spoke of him often. On the last day of my father's life he cried for his brother and expressed the hope he was to be re-united with him at last. I had to console him, and as I did, a direct line was forged between the generations; just as it should be.

Fred was a little telegram messenger boy in 1916 who became so overwhelmed at the telegrams he was delivering of the latest deaths, that he lied about his age and died in 1917 at the age of 17. My daughter took a trip to the WW1 sites last year and laid the first wreath for the family in nearly a century. She cried a good deal. When she arrived back at the coach, she found her students had been given the enlarged photo of my uncle and were sitting in stunned silence. They told her they couldn't believe he looked so young. Although he was their age he looked like a child..

I want to pay homage to the little man here, against the backdrop of this vile case for the purposes of chiascuro. For he is light against dark. He, among many selfless individuals demonstrated what elevated humans are capable of in thought, word and deed.A little vignette of him that I carry in my mind is as follows: When I was about seven my aunt told me he had turned to her one day and said "I am so full of sin". This is the humility, the self-searching, the introspection of a little boy -  the complete antithesis to the derelict behaviour of those twisting and turning truth to serve their own wicked ends. Such people are  light years away from even the genesis of introspection. They are extinguishing their own light and we are watching it go out. Persons without the light of humanity within shrivel and die inside. And it is stamped on their faces but they don't themselves see it.

Going back to the Railway Man. The beatings these men took because of Lomax's ability to set up a simple valve radio receiver so that the men could hear the familiar voices of their homeland, were almost beyond one's ability to watch. The sheer wickedness of humans came in at you from every angle and as I watched I felt as though,Pandora's Box had flown open and all the evils of the world were rushing out at me. At that moment, sitting in the dark of the auditorium, there was no differentiation in my mind between the evil acts I was watching and what I know is going on in this country and being hidden from its citizens.

What a waste, an abject waste of these brave young lives; men who, as they writhed in agony, could never have believed that equally twisted minds would hold sway in their own land only a few generations after their passing. .

Powerful stuff Mirage, I've quoted it in full. It rings a lot of bells because, as I have stated many times, I am most definitely not a religious person. Yet something about this situation seems to compel me to want to make a moral stance - at times I can almost feel myself directed by an external hand and believe me, for me that is extremely disconcerting. I actually feel like I'm on trial for whatever the hell happened out there. I suppose I am the good man doing nothing whilst evil flourishes. Where to start though, dismantling this abomination? Where is the crack in which to insert the lever that brings the whole hideous edifice tumbling down? I wish with all my being that I knew the answer to that.

Please don't ever stop posting Mirage. If you are giving people better equipped to deal with the situation the heart that you give me then every word you say is vital.

This is a fascinating thread, and perhaps a bit of 'revelation' moment all of its own.  The update to the website is significant.  Based on everybody's input, I'm going for the following:

Scotland Yard

1. SY are unwilling participants in this entire exercise and are soldiering away doing normal police-work.  Investigating leads, and where necessary using ILRs to talk to persons of interest.  They have been clearly told to stay away from the T9 and are doing so.

2. Because SY are just doing their thing, they really don't give a monkey about what the McCanns put on their website.  I doubt they ever look at it.  So when Team McCann asked them if they can write their nonsense about 'tannerman', the reply was probably - sure "go for it - (what do we care)".

3. SY may well believe that the '3 burglars' lead will fizzle out, that they may have already vanished, or that at best they were witnesses.  It's why they think it may takes weeks / months to rule them (and any other long shots) out.

The McCanns

1. They are using CW and the ILRs to maximum effect, timing press releases and 'leaks' to coincide with any Libel Court action.  

2. They need to keep 'tannerman' as they have invested too much of their narrative in him.  It is highly significant that they have taken this stance.  Unfortunately, even if SY notice its significance, they can do nothing about it.   The McCanns know this: their cocky website responses, "source" statements to the media, and public appearances confirm their knowledge that SY have been told to keep their hands off.  


So has anything really changed?  I don't think so.  Since the panic-faces on CW, the McCanns have relaxed now that they think SY is not allowed to touch them.  And as such they are simply using whatever SY comes up with as material for PR spin - especially around the Libel Case.   SY are plodding along going through the motions - not really caring one way or the other.  

The only bright points I can see are that the PJ are now up and running, and that SY may well rule out the 3 burglars and a bunch of other long shots (as well as 'tannerman' of course).   My sense is that the McCanns think that also, and this is their primary motivation for keeping 'tannerman' as prime suspect on their site.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

russiandoll wrote:How do you interpret what is going on just now Clay? It is certainly intriguing.

 

Well, as usual, I'm pretty much baffled!

It could be that Redwood is prepared to let go almost anything said or done in the short term because he has the bigger picture and knows that it won't make any difference to the ultimate outcome. However there are certain standards of behaviour and decency that you expect supposedly intelligent people to adhere to and the McCanns have, for me, crossed a line with this website stunt and it is difficult for me to see that not just tolerated but seemingly endorsed, no matter for how short a time it may turn out to be.

The thing that I find most troubling is the niggling doubt it creates that there is some credence to the McCanns version of events, that they possibly are labouring under a terrible miscarriage of perception and might ultimately be vindicated. Where would that leave all of us, as human beings?

Good question. I've asked myself many times.

Back to the Apple store downloading "Murder on the Mississippi Mystery" would be my answer

In my heart of hearts I do hope the McCs are innocent of the murder of little Maddie

Really

But as far as destroying TB and GA and their families are concerned?

That, to me has all the hallmarks of evil. They could have left well alone, enjoying the loot. The single reason I keep looking at this Forum is, that I want to see who, in the end, is proven right, and what happens to those who cheated on the world

Like Bishop Brennan, IMO SY have been told to steer clear of the McCanns.  What reinforced it for me was the fact that SY have stated to Tony in an email that they are the ONLY UK point to receive information on the McCann case.  Yet they allow the McCanns to be receivers of information and to ask the public to contact their own investigation team if they have information.   This indicates to me that they are working together.  If SY suspected the McCanns, they certainly wouldn`t allow them to be receivers of information.

What I don't understand is WHY would sy let the mccanns do this therefore letting it be believe its ok for people to donate to the mccanns private fund.
when in reality the mccanns have NOT BEEN CLEARED.

tiny wrote:What I don't understand is WHY would sy let the mccanns do this therefore letting it be believe its ok for people to donate to the mccanns private fund.
when in reality the mccanns have NOT BEEN CLEARED.

 I think very few people realise the 'fund' is a company and not a charity. The McCanns are probably within the law if they have a tiny bit of information hidden somewhere on their website that states it's a company. They are no doubt within the law to give their opinion on the case too. I suspect SY have more pressing matters to concentrate re. the case.

Woofer wrote:Like Bishop Brennan, IMO SY have been told to steer clear of the McCanns.  What reinforced it for me was the fact that SY have stated to Tony in an email that they are the ONLY UK point to receive information on the McCann case.  Yet they allow the McCanns to be receivers of information and to ask the public to contact their own investigation team if they have information.   This indicates to me that they are working together.  If SY suspected the McCanns, they certainly wouldn`t allow them to be receivers of information.

With the recent revelations of massive data collection from all electronic means, what makes you think that an order hasn't been placed to 'collect and view' any and all info connected to the McCs, their own website included.   

Scotland Yard

1. SY are unwilling participants in this entire exercise and are soldiering away doing normal police-work.  Investigating leads, and where necessary using ILRs to talk to persons of interest.  They have been clearly told to stay away from the T9 and are doing so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Unwilling?

Hardly 'unwilling' i suggest when the big boss at SY with 'ultimate oversight' of the investigation of the McCann's child 'disappearance' is BHH.

BHH who personally took part in a fund raising balloon launch in Liverpool where all the proceeds, raised, went to the McCanns 'find Madeleine fund'

And hardly 'unwilling' when BHH has said it is HIS 'elite team' that are on constant standby to spring into action to make arrests.

Just as an aside:

IF as i believe that all this obscuration by the Met is to 'cover up' a possible crime then where will it stand in context to the recently 'exposed' 'cover ups' by the MET?

Above Hillsborough? (BHH possibly 'implicated')
Below Plebgate? (BHH supporting lying officer 100%)
Above Lawrence (BHH knew about spying on family but didn't tell them for a year)
Below Met cops using dead childrens ID's? (BHH knew, but didn't tell any parents)
Above fund raising for possible future 'suspects'? (BHH helped raise money for)

For me personally the Met/AR are certainly 'willing' partners and under BHH, McCann fund raiser, always will be.

Until BHH is 'gone' then AR/Met have no chance of 'doing their best for Madeleine'

All imo, obviously.

One thing I would say is that people should not get the idea Redwood is running the investigation - that is pure PR for the masses.

As in all very high profile and sensitive investigations there are lots more people - higher up in the hierarchy than him - who will be directing events i.e. making the key decisions about: whether to interview the Tapas 9 (can you really believe any honest officer would not want to interview them again?); about whether to take seriously the Gaspar letter; whether send a Rogatory letter; whether to try and co-operate with the PJ... etc.  I have long suspected that somewhere the is a joint Police-Civil Service committee overseeing the whole McCann case.

bobbin wrote:

Woofer wrote:Like Bishop Brennan, IMO SY have been told to steer clear of the McCanns.  What reinforced it for me was the fact that SY have stated to Tony in an email that they are the ONLY UK point to receive information on the McCann case.  Yet they allow the McCanns to be receivers of information and to ask the public to contact their own investigation team if they have information.   This indicates to me that they are working together.  If SY suspected the McCanns, they certainly wouldn`t allow them to be receivers of information.

With the recent revelations of massive data collection from all electronic means, what makes you think that an order hasn't been placed to 'collect and view' any and all info connected to the McCs, their own website included.   

I understand what you say about the MET's ability to hack in to their website, Bobbin. But what would be the point? What would they learn from supporters who think they may know this man? About as much as they learn from  those who think they may have seen MM on holiday in 2009 and had better say so now. As for clandestine contact from allies,this would take place elsewhere under a secrecy pact. Rothley Manor springs to mind.

If they'd wanted to, the MET could have bugged their phones ages ago and this would have all been wrapped up by now. Somehow I don't think MI5 would have cleared it though. They would have resorted to the Human Rights Act, much like the judge who turned down the PJ's request to bug their phones in 2007.,

If Grange wanted to gather intelligence on the pair, they've had a very long time to do this. So I am out of excuses for this unseemly excursion around the houses. My patience with the MET expired this morning.

bobbin wrote:

Woofer wrote:Like Bishop Brennan, IMO SY have been told to steer clear of the McCanns.  What reinforced it for me was the fact that SY have stated to Tony in an email that they are the ONLY UK point to receive information on the McCann case.  Yet they allow the McCanns to be receivers of information and to ask the public to contact their own investigation team if they have information.   This indicates to me that they are working together.  If SY suspected the McCanns, they certainly wouldn`t allow them to be receivers of information.

With the recent revelations of massive data collection from all electronic means, what makes you think that an order hasn't been placed to 'collect and view' any and all info connected to the McCs, their own website included.   

I hadn`t thought of that bobbin - it would be great if there was an order but I reckon that`s clutching at straws. Anyway on the McCanns `Find Madeleine` website which they state is The Official Website To Find Madeleine McCann, they give a telephone number of their investigation line (0845 838 4699) and also their investigation team email address (investigation@findmadeleine.com), so SY would have to have the ability to intercept both of these contacts.  It is only when you follow the link to `Unidentified People of Interest To The Inquiry` where Tannerman takes precedence, that you find a contact number for SY (together with their own contact details). 

Yet on the `Official Find Madeleine Campaign` Facebook page where it says "Have You Seen Me", they only have the contact details for the Police (can`t see their own contact details anywhere).