CRIMEWATCH Update on MadeleineMcCann case tonight 19th March

dantezebu wrote:

AndyB wrote:

dantezebu wrote:From the guardian:
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve

Thsi is the only significant news IMO.
It seems Redwood is taking the dog indications into account.

Thank you for pointing this out dantezebu. In my anger I had failed to digest the Guardian article properly when I first read it. Obviously I hope you're right and they're moving away from the ridiculous abduction theory. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks that, even if you are right, its a precursor to setting up mysteron/target man as the one that caused Madeleine's death

Andy I don't think you did miss this. From what I can see on   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
there were TWO guardian articles:

The first one from the press association at 11.43
with the quote:
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann."

ie in reference to the abduction

And the second one by James Meikle at 11.43
with the quote:
"Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. "These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance," he said."

this one in reference to her being alive.

Dantzebu, that's perceptive of you;

in fact AR says:

1. we're not convinced it is an abduction;
2. we're not convinced the child is still alive

That will do for the time being, while SY debunks the rest of the myths

I will say this for Operation Grange - they sure do have a lot of files.

Mirage wrote:I think old Andy was sending out a subliminal message - he wants this case binned.    

Kate looks into the bin the next morning but the bin man was already gone and now Redwood is hoping to catch up with a bin man whose collection route is wide and spread out far covering geographical location of probably 50-100miles radius of PDL. Priceless!

Has Redwood not thought of checking with Town councils for employees list?
A bin man regularly wearing his trade-mark jersey - not difficult to single out is it? Many co-workers would know which man Police is talking about.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:I will say this for Operation Grange - they sure do have a lot of files.

Oh that's ok Clay, the Met are good at shredding.

Woofer wrote:

loopzdaloop wrote:Its surely great news that the Portugese have reopened the case.

Does this mean arrests soon ?

They started their review months before SY and their proper investigation has been going on for ages - can`t remember exactly when it commenced.

IIRC, Portuguese starts their own review 10 months or a year ahead of MET.
If this - a string of itinerary crimes involving children - is the basis that justifies the official re-opening of the Maddie case, the Mccanns would have been informed of the re-opening.  This would make sense how Kate knew about it hence her mentioning of it in her bewk, and hence why it was not in released files.
It therefore goes without saying MET were also told of this from the outset when they accepted PT invite to join the review.

Why did Redwood not announce this earlier, why now ?
Why is the bin man faceless ?
Is this bin man one of the two e-fits ?
Is this a new appeal or a re-appeal of the CW ?

anyone care to comment on this from the Daily Star ?


Maddie McCann cops investigating PAEDO who targeted holiday homes of Brits
A PAEDOPHILE intruder who sexually abused five girls during break-ins of holiday homes in the Algarve has now become a key suspect linked to the disappearance of Maddie McCann.

Share 210

By Tom Rawle/Published 19th March 2014

SUSPECT: The man targeted other small girls inholiday homes in the Algarve [PA]

He was spotted carrying a girl of Maddie's description on the beach on the night of her disappearance.

The suspect is said to have attacked the girls, aged between seven and ten, just months before four-year-old Maddie went missing in the Algarve, Portugal in 2007.

Witnesses have described the man as tanned, with dark hair and say he spoke in English with a foreign accent.

The man is suspected of breaking into 12 properties in the Algarve where British families were staying between 2004 and 2010.

Scotland Yard have confirmed a number of the break-ins show similar signs to that of on the night of Maddie's disappearance.

They said there were no signs of forced entry, nothing was taken and the intruder appeared between 2am and 5am.

His majority of attacks on young girls were said to have been between 2004 and 2006.

And the most recent break-in was reported in 2010.

CLUES: This t-shirt is being regarded as key evidence [PA]

“We still need to establish the identity of a man seen by three witnesses, carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description towards the beach”

A red t-shirt with a white hoop on the back, thought to be worn by the suspect, is being treated as key evidence by police.

The suspect may have been in the villa or looking round the villa for some time before committing the offences or being disturbed either by a parent coming in, or the child waking up.

Scotland Yard announced officers are investigating 12 potentially linked crimes in holiday resorts near to where Madeleine vanished.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said authorities "need" to find this man.

He said: "These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our enquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance.

"If you have been a victim of a similar crime please come forward even if you reported the incident to police in Portugal, or anywhere else, please do not assume we have been made aware of it.

"While some of these offences have been in the public domain before, following our appeal in October three more were reported to us as a direct result of that appeal. One of those reports we believe is the first in the potential series."

An appeal last year asking for information gained over 5,000 calls which created new leads for police to investigate.

Police are now calling on anyone who may know the identity of the man to come forward.

A TV appeal last year resulted in more than 5,000 calls with further evidence [GETTY]

DCI Redwood continued: "We still need to establish the identity of a man seen by three witnesses, carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description towards the beach or town areas at about 22.00 on the night Madeleine disappeared.

"The witnesses have described the man in the e-fits as being white, aged in his 30s, with short brown hair, of medium build, medium height and clean shaven."

"The Metropolitan Police Service continues to offer a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007.

"Please call us on 0800 0961011 if you are within the UK. The number for non-UK residents is +44 207 1580 126.

"Alternatively if you do not want to speak to us directly you can contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111."

Bellisa wrote:
What about the chief of police stating he had the names of suspects a few weeks back?

Seems BHH is withholding information from Redwood.   BHH and Redwood are working on different lines of enquiries ?

Clay Regazzoni wrote:I will say this for Operation Grange - they sure do have a lot of files.

30,000 PJ files + 5000 responses from CW + X number PIs files + ? + ? + ? + ? +++ unknown

No wonder they are still searching for bin man......

Why doesn't Redwood just ask the bin man employer ? It would be a lot quicker you'd think!

So a male commits sex crimes against children while parents present, but[ presumably] sleeping.
Man listens before entry to establish all quiet.
Still a risk -taker. One parent might wake up, go for a drink and hear a child. Children who told of a smell must have been awake.
 Man might try to subdue child, there would be an audible struggle with muffled sound if for example, a hand was placed over the child's mouth.

 Depending on temper of parent[s]. a risk of bodily harm to the suspect if discovered. Hardly a request to wait while police or reception called.

 Man must have either entered, forced entry or not, other properties where requisite youngsters were not present,[ all males, females too young, too old], so left.

 or have done the necessary recce to establish what children were in which villas/ apartments.

 This man was very lucky if in every property there was a female child of the required age, ethnicity and he had not hung around to learn who was where.

 He used the same MO, changed it on one occasion, then reverted to usual MO.

Why mention the bin-men? AR was ambiguous. Are we meant to believe the suspect worked at this time, took a break to molest children, was not missed by colleagues?
 Or were bin men maybe witnesses, regularly on the streets at the time these offences were committed?

Seek truth wrote:Didn't Kate write about this in her book years ago?


 

She opened a roadside dumpster. Thought: 'Please God, no'. Then went indoors and had a cup of coffee.

An interesting case in Limerick, Ireland reported this morning on radio and in the print media. 

A toddler aged two and a half climbed out of his cot at some time around 2 am, opened the front door and walked along a busy road for a kilometre (or mile depending on what paper you read) until he was found by a young man who called the gardai (police). They managed to find the parents by searching the area and finding a house with the front door open. The parents had no idea he had gone.

Earlier in this discussion thread I commented on the stinky man and the lack of evidence of break-ins in the holiday apartments where the white British girls were assaulted. I said surely people, parents or otherwise, secure their property when going to bed. It seems this Irish family secured theirs so well that a two and a half year old could open the front door unaided.  He didn't bother to close the door though!

PeterMac wrote:"He was spotted carrying a girl of Maddie's description on the beach on the night of her disappearance."

Really ?
That is the first time anyone has even mentioned a man carrying a child on the beach, is it not ?
This gibberish gets worse by the day.

 It is worse than gibberish, even if they have mistakenly said on rather than towards the beach and have not mentioned 10 pm, they are imo ref to Smithman, despite giving descriptions of 2 men which are very different, making their statement ridiculous.
 SY have never said that they believe Smithman and child molester are suspected to be the same person.

 Redwood clearly said re Smithman that he was seen carrying a girl fitting Madeleine's description and mentioned the direction he took. The Star quotes him repeating his CW statement

DCI Redwood continued: "We still need to establish the identity of a man seen by three witnesses, carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description towards the beach or town areas at about 22.00 on the night Madeleine disappeared.

"The witnesses have described the man in the e-fits as being white, aged in his 30s, with short brown hair, of medium build, medium height and clean shaven."

 

 The Star have merged the paedo  intruder and Smithman into the same person.

Seek truth wrote:Red top? No forced entry? Sitting on beds and exchanging a few words?

It's got to be Father Christmas!

Ah ha ha, Ho Ho Ho!

Andy ruled that one out cos old Kate had called out maintenance when she couldn't find a chimney.

PeterMac wrote:"He was spotted carrying a girl of Maddie's description on the beach on the night of her disappearance."

Really ?
That is the first time anyone has even mentioned a man carrying a child on the beach, is it not ?
This gibberish gets worse by the day.

Yes was just about to mention this.
Totally agree this should be looked at,but surely 3 years ago.
Is AR just going to pop up on CW every few months as he looks at another suspect?

How hard can it be to find a bin man that worked in those areas from 04 - 10?

Did he die in 2010?

Has he been inside from 2010?

Chances of someone from the UK knowing the name of pot belly bin man i would guess is small.

Would an appeal in the Portugal not be more likely to get a result?

NO mention of the 'great' Maddie 'breakthrough' on Lorraine's K's 'paper review'!

Hmmmm.

I know LK has never worn a good quality Madeleine wristband but she ALWAYS jumps in when 'our' Maddie is in the papers.

NOT today!

whmon wrote:I have never been a believer in conspiracy theories but I am really starting to wonder. WHY has the evidence of the dogs never played a part in all of this? When this particular 'suspect' is discredited as we all know he will be, another one will take his or her place. PLEASE can the police just look at the cadaver scent. I'm really beginning to believe in a cover up and I don't want to, I want to believe better in the authorities.

Redwood is not saying smelly man is the abductor Whmon, in fact I got the impression that he was ticking boxes.

Kate brought up the night prowler in her book Whmom, but there was nothing tangible to support it. If they McCanns were tried, their defence could claim that the police refused to follow up this obvious lead.

DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment. That was the significant news yesterday.

quote Cristobell :  " DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment. That was the significant news yesterday"

 It was, I agree, but was it significant enough to be repeated on CW last night, or to be part of the latest Met update? Will have to look at both !

  Well, CW was interesting. A DI spoke to Matthew from the first CW and started by describing 12 break-ins. This was contradicted la,ter in the interview when he said in only some of these 12 incidents was there forced entry.

 Redwood was very clear that he thought despite no scientific link, that there were enough similarities in the MO for him to conclude that it was the same man entering these villas and accessing the children. He mentioned 4 sexual assaults, other times man lying or sitting on the child's bed.

 Asked could it be Maddie's abductor.... it could be.

 I saw no reference to the PdL incidents, so maybe he spoke about them later. Interesting viewing.

Cristobell wrote:

Redwood is not saying smelly man is the abductor Whmon, in fact I got the impression that he was ticking boxes.

Kate brought up the night prowler in her book Whmom, but there was nothing tangible to support it.  If they McCanns were tried, their defence could claim that the police refused to follow up this obvious lead.  

DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment. That was the significant news yesterday.

Agree 100% with you!

And if DCI Redwood is now saying that Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment, doesn't this shine a different light on the libel trial in Portugal? Which is all about going after Amaral for publishing details which suggested that Madeleine was dead, and therefore this stopped people from searching for her? Isn't this exactly what DCI Redwood is now suggesting is the case?

And having tiptoed into the territory of Madeleine being possibly dead... if they can prove she was dead, and can prove that the parents knew she was dead, then that also takes care of the alleged fraud involving The Fund.

canada12 wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Didn't Kate write about this in her book years ago?


 

If Kate wrote about this in The Bewk then I can see the logic in SY investigating it.

I believe AR was being honest when he said they were investigating with a view towards identifying and eliminating this person from their lines of inquiry.

As I said before, knocking the legs out from underneath all McCann lines of defense if this should go to court.

Due diligence, no matter how silly it seems on the surface.

Can you imagine the size of court bundles? CR will be directing the jury to page so and so, then page so and so. Eons could pass.

Portia wrote:

dantezebu wrote:

AndyB wrote:

dantezebu wrote:From the guardian:
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine, accepted there were differences between these cases and that of Madeleine's disappearance but added that there was a possibility that Madeleine had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve

Thsi is the only significant news IMO.
It seems Redwood is taking the dog indications into account.

Thank you for pointing this out dantezebu. In my anger I had failed to digest the Guardian article properly when I first read it. Obviously I hope you're right and they're moving away from the ridiculous abduction theory. Unfortunately the cynic in me thinks that, even if you are right, its a precursor to setting up mysteron/target man as the one that caused Madeleine's death

Andy I don't think you did miss this. From what I can see on   http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
there were TWO guardian articles:

The first one from the press association at 11.43
with the quote:
"While I completely accept that there are differences (between the break-ins and the McCann case), there is no abduction that we can see, but the assumption from that is that Madeleine McCann has been abducted. That may not necessarily follow with all our thinking about what may have become of Madeleine McCann."

ie in reference to the abduction

And the second one by James Meikle at 11.43
with the quote:
"Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. "These offences are very serious and no one has been charged in connection with them. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance," he said."

this one in reference to her being alive.

Dantzebu, that's perceptive of you;

in fact AR says:

1. we're not convinced it is an abduction;
2. we're not convinced the child is still alive

That will do for the time being, while SY debunks the rest of the myths

If this is the case why the need to keep criticising the Portuguese police? That makes sense to me on one level only.

Mirage wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Didn't Kate write about this in her book years ago?


 

If Kate wrote about this in The Bewk then I can see the logic in SY investigating it.

I believe AR was being honest when he said they were investigating with a view towards identifying and eliminating this person from their lines of inquiry.

As I said before, knocking the legs out from underneath all McCann lines of defense if this should go to court.

Due diligence, no matter how silly it seems on the surface.

Can you imagine the size of court bundles? CR will be directing the jury to page so and so, then page so and so. Eons could pass.

I suspect this was all part of the original plan - to make it so confusing and so all over the place that a prosecutor and a jury would have a very difficult time trying to dissect and understand it all. But complex trials have been conducted, and a skilled prosecutor can make all the difference.

We also need to eliminate this man from our enquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance.

IMO these words, along with those already highlighted by others concerning Maddie's state when 'leaving' the apartment, are very significant.

russiandoll wrote:quote Cristobell :  " DCI Redwood said Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment. That was the significant news yesterday"

 It was, I agree, but was it significant enough to be repeated on CW last night, or to be part of the latest Met update? Will have to look at both !

No, he didn't repeat it on CW, but the cat is out of the bag and cannot be put back in. I think sitting there taking calls during the program was a tad demeaning for the DCI, but they cannot be accused of ignoring this 'obvious' lead should it be used in a future defence.

Its worth noting, that the deranged pros are already constructing stories that involve abductor (smelly man) killing Madeleine and taking her with him, they are in fact preparing for the sh*t to hit the fan, which it will when the newspaper editors wake up and smell the coffee.

Either SY are indeed whitewashing. And this is risky given that their reputation is already in the gutter and they are a laughing stock. 

Or this is a new, admittedly painful, stage of sifting and flushing. 

First, we already know that Stinkyman does not gel with any of the known facts at all, either the facts about Stinkyman or the facts that cling to the necks of that child's derelict parents and their licenscious chums. 

However, look at the profile of Amaral's 'prime suspects' - look at their response to AR ruling out Tannerman... It is only the fictional perpetrator of a felonious crime who would shrug and allow authorities to randomly pursue any other vaporous perpetrator or scenario as long as it points away from them, because that represents a loss of control. You become as much a subject of the roller coaster pursuit as the victim did. All those carefully crafted fables and corroborated accounts, while you were directing the police where to look. Do you think TM want Tannerman ruled out again? Do they want to be interviewed again about a whole new perp profile? To have to re-weave their fables to fit in with the new suspect? To have to admit that they disregarded and failed to support Edgar's enquiries years ago, making them as blundersome as Porto Plod? To have to face the imminent closure of their lifestyle fund and the possible writing off of their case, ascribed to a long-gone random pervert, case closed? What do you think that would do to sociopathic control freaks? 

Who unearthed Stinkyman? PJ? Amaral? Edgar? If the latter, I would want to know if he actually raised evidence of factual events, or found a half dozen curiously English-only people to give him testimony? Was Edgar running an investigation? Or an interference operation? How could I find out? By seeking victims beyond the profiled control group. By blowing it open to four countries of tourists in that region. By ringing bells. By taking it beyond the control of the one who staged the information. I'd be unravelling my opponents intricately crafted 'exhaustive' investigation, until all I was left with were the suspects that their investigators refused to consider... Themselves. 

Or it could just be a very expensive, pointless, easier-to-whitewash-than-this kind of self-affirming self-whitewash of a formerly effective whitewash. 

I can't help but sense that whatever mechanics put this investigation back on rails in two countries wanted to cause as much pain and discomfort as possible to the Tapas group. 

Payne/Gaspar still noticeable by absence. The dogs are being ignored. Kate's arguido silence still a moot point, yet all three would be sterling silver evidence in a prosecution or investigation in any credible country of the world. And GA would be commended as the only investigator to actually behave like a good detective, letting statistical likelihoods and pertinent facts steer his suspicions from the outset.