Redwood's Role - And the 'Theory of the Developing Narrative'

by **Tony Bennett** 13.07.14 23:00

This post is basically to respond to two comments posted this morning by ‘endgame’ and ‘MRNOODLES’. Neither thought that today’s Sunday Express article about a woman overhearing a conversation about a body could possibly have come from the McCann Team (as I had suggested in the OP on that thread) because it suggests that Madeleine might be dead. Here are their two comments.

(1) endgame: The only significance of this article is that it yet again reinforces the idea that Madeleine is dead which suggests to me that it wasn't actually the pink one who placed it particularly as it appears to have originated in Portugal.

(2) MRNOODLES: Why would TM allow a story that mentions a body? Surely they would omit the word body, and promote the overheard conversation as live child? Or have I missed something?

I want to suggest a simple possible explanation. It is this: Could this simply be part and parcel of Operation Grange and the McCann Team working together on a developing narrative to prepare for the unfolding of the final verdict to be given to the public when Grange has finished: “We now know beyond a reasonable doubt that Madeleine was murdered by her abductor”?

Could Operation Grange have been set up by appointing as the man-in-charge DCS Hamish Campbell (the man whose suspect forensic evidence of a speck of firearms residue in his coat pocket sent an innocent man, Barry Bulsara/George, to prison for 8 years) and DCI Redwood, with a simple mission: to conclude the narrative begun by the McCanns? After all, their remit was simple: “To review the abduction as if it had happened in Britain”.

The History of the 'Developing Narrative'

If we review the history of what we might call ‘The Narrative’, from May 2007 to May 2011 (date Grange was appointed), it can be conveniently summarised thus:

“Madeleine was abducted between about 9.10pm and 9.15pm on 3 May. The children had been left for short periods on their own, which the McCanns thought was well within the bounds of responsible parenting. The main reason she hasn’t been found is because the initial investigation was bungled by an incompetent police force led by a now-disgraced senior detective, who went on to line his pockets by writing a libellous book about the case”.

The suggestion might be that Redwood was, as it were, ‘passed the baton’, and asked to run with it, i.e. develop this narrative further, until the finishing line.

If we look at the history of Grange, it can be summarised thus:

1^st year - Release of age-progressed sketch of Madeleine aged 9, accompanied by the message: “There is evidence to suggest that Madeleine may be alive”

2^nd year - Drip-feed of stories suggesting police are getting ever closer to finding out who took Madeleine. Lots of statistics produced to show what a massive amount of work was being done. Visits to Portugal. Suggestions of close working with the PJ (which turned out to be false). Leaks of a great variety of potential suspects. A visit to Portugal by two cop CPS lwayers. And so on.

14 October 2013 – CrimeWatch McCann Special:

Timeline changed by removing Tannerman and substituting Crecheman
Window of opportunity for abductor to remove Madeleine changed from 9.10pm to 9.15pm (5 minutes) to 9.10pm to 10.00pm (50 minutes)
Smithman and 4 other suspicious men sought
Madeleine could still be alive.

March 2014 – Crimewatch, first suggestion that Madeleine could have been dead when removed from the apartment.

19 March 2014 – Article in The Guardian:

“This article was amended on 21 March 2014. The earlier version stated that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had said the assumption that Madeleine had been alive when she left the apartment "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case. To clarify: those quoted words actually came after Redwood had referred to the assumption that Madeleine had been abducted. However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was”.

May 2014 – Redwood’s men go up in an Alouette Mark III helicopter; much speculation in the press that Madeleine may have been killed by the abductor.

June 2014 – Heavily-reported and -photographed searches of a large plot of waste ground – again much speculation in the press that Madeleine may have been killed by the abductor.

13 July 2014 – Sunday Express story about a conversation about burying a dead body.

That’s now easy to explain in terms of what I suggest might be called ‘The Gradually Evolving Narrative’.

The narrative as it was in 2011 can now be slightly re-written as follows:

“Madeleine was abducted between about 9.10pm and 10.00pm on 3 May. The abductor may have been the man seen by an Irish family carrying a child; we want his name. We are considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment. The abductor may have murdered her there”.

Following this ‘developing narrative’ idea, therefore, it is only to be expected that further stories about the possibility of Madeleine’s death at the hands of the abductor will be developed in the coming months. Today’s Sunday Express story is thus - according to the ‘developing narrative’ theory, likely to be the first of many.

Thus ‘Justformaddie’s post, according to the above scenario, absolutely hit the nail on the head:

“I think this is Team McCann getting the public to come to terms with death, as Kate McCann was saying a few weeks ago that she ‘needs to know what happened’. I think she knows she’s dead, but in the way OpGrange seems to be heading lately, as burglar, killed and took the body for burial…”

‘Hicks’ was also on the same line: “This story is the continuation of Smithman, and possibly what happened next. This - woman - hearing the conversation is placed exactly in the right area where Smithman was seen…”

‘Plebgate’ asked: “What use is this story anyway, she heard someone, didn't see them, couldn't identify them (except maybe voice) and if those words were uttered no doubt they would have been in hushed tones. So what on earth is the point of the story”.

@ Plebgate - According to the above scenario, the point of the Sunday Express story, which comes from the heart of Rothley, from Mitchell’s close pal Tracey Kandohla, is therefore that it develops the current narrative.

‘ShuBob’ wrote: “I don't think the story is as bonkers as some are making out. Within it may be hidden nuggets of truth”.

@ Shubob - I doubt if it has any element of truth at all, but it does develop ‘The Narrative’.

by Woofer 13.07.14 23:22

If all your suggestions are correct Tony, it can only mean that something evil and someone extremely high profile is up to their necks in this and has to be protected.

by Bishop Brennan 13.07.14 23:49

Woofer wrote:If all your suggestions are correct Tony, it can only mean that something evil and someone extremely high profile is up to their necks in this and has to be protected.

With all that is swilling around at the moment, then that is more than likely. In particular DC must now be protected. He's making a series of terrible judgment calls and the election is coming up. He needs this particular hot potato to go away. How can he justify 38 detectives for 3 years on this, compared to what he's allocated to the care home scandals? He cannot.

This needs to be wrapped up and Amaral either defeated, tied up in legal knots for years or simply ignored. Tony's emerging narrative would fit the bill very nicely. Neat, tidy, parents exonerated, case closed, detectives reassigned.

I hope it's not true but it makes sense and sadly the recent stories from Portugal suggest that there is no parallel PJ investigation. Bad times...

by plebgate 13.07.14 23:54

Another pause for thought post Tony and to me it makes more sense than the newspaper report we read about today. Pause for thought indeed.

by Miraflores 14.07.14 0:35

Neat, tidy, parents exonerated, case closed, detectives reassigned.

Fund closed.

by suzyjohnson 14.07.14 0:53

Tony, yes it does sound like part of the developing narrative.

Woofer, this doesn't mean necessarily that anything else of importance is being covered up, happen they're just trying to find the easiest way out.

Endgame and Mr Noodles, if the McCanns are playing games of this nature in the press then it can only be because they know that Madeleine is not alive. If they know that for a fact, then they will want the easiest way out of their situation as well, that is an explanation that somebody else killed her.

ETA Hopefully, Portugal can see this possibility and the libel trial will go Amaral's way.

by endgame 14.07.14 9:17

What you say Tony is plausible and well argued. However, a couple of comments.

I find it difficult to accept that the intention to develop such a narrative would have been there since the beginning of OG and it seems far more likely that it would have developed its own momentum and direction as the "investigation" has progressed.

If true, what it would suggest to me is that somewhere along the line AR has actually worked out the truth of what happened and from then on has been either explicitly or implicitly engaged in a process of negotiation with the McCanns and the PJ to find a way to end the "investigation" so that everyone comes out of it OK. I don't think he would have any need to do this if his end objective was to bring the McCanns to justice.

As always though there are a lot of loose ends. Why at the very same time is GM going out of his way to rubbish the only evidence that points to death in the apartment? Why does this woman need to be invented or given prominence when there is no evidence to support what she says, the bar owner denies part of it in the article itself and it is not essential to the narrative? Why has AR embarked on this narrative and made such a public show of the searches and the interviews when he must know that they are going to lead to nothing and actually increase public scepticism?

I am not a great believer in the idea of the great master plan at work behind the scenes which when all is revealed [if it ever is] will allow every piece of the jigsaw to fit neatly into place. I think far more in this case has probably happened by accident rather than design. None of which fundamentally challenges your view of a narrative. If there is one though, I think it may be more made up as they go along rather than pre- planned and premeditated.

by Guest 14.07.14 10:06

I can't make the post I would like to make, as I can't vocalise my thoughts - it's almost like I can taste the shape of my ideas, but not express them in a spoken or written form. But I agree about the forced narrative - that's why avid readers(!) of my witterings here will find so many pop culture references, Narratives and story arcs are, I believe, as important in real life as they are in fiction (and of course at the blurred edge of the two, as in this case). That's why real events can often seem clichéd - because life is a whole series of clichés! Sport, which is of course a distilled version of real life, is even worse in this respect.

So two things are going on, I think. One, a concerted effort, either deliberately or subconsciously, by all involved (including us) to make the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann fit one or a combination of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The other, what you might call a fallback position, to at least sell as a proven fact that death (at whoever's hands, or accidental) and a subsequent panicked but effective concealment of the body occurred on the evening of May 3rd 2007. Alas with all that I have read I cannot accept that as the truth.

by Cristobell 14.07.14 11:16

The big flaw in the 'murdered by the abductor' story is the McCanns' denial of the dogs' evidence.

If DCI Redwood is somehow going to claim an abductor murdered Madeleine in apartment 5A (in line with dog alerts), then the McCanns do at the very least need to agree with him. They have now however, taken the unwieldy stance of denying the dogs evidence and the forensic findings completely. Gerry even took the opportunity while in the witness box to point out that there was no blood.

For a whitewash to work, shouldn't those involved be working together?

by AndyB 14.07.14 11:24

Cristobell wrote:The big flaw in the 'murdered by the abductor' story is the McCanns' denial of the dogs' evidence.

If DCI Redwood is somehow going to claim an abductor murdered Madeleine in apartment 5A (in line with dog alerts), then the McCanns do at the very least need to agree with him. They have now however, taken the unwieldy stance of denying the dogs evidence and the forensic findings completely. Gerry even took the opportunity while in the witness box to point out that there was no blood.

For a whitewash to work, shouldn't those involved be working together?

It depends on what is being covered up. If, as I believe, the McCann's involvement in their daughter's disappearance is not what is being covered up and they are just on the periphery of some other big secret, its entirely possible for them to be dropped once they are no longer needed or become a liability

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 11:30

Well, I certainly am a believer in the Evolving Narrative. Redwood is being tasked with pushing a gradually evolving narrative - which one day will lead to closure of the case. I think he has had to change tack a couple of times and probably the conclusion is still not clear, even to him and his directors at this stage.

I wonder if Op Grange will go very quiet until the outcome of the 'DAMAGES trial ' e.g. Sep or October. I guess so.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.07.14 11:58

HelenMeg wrote:Well, I certainly am a believer in the Evolving Narrative. Redwood is being tasked with pushing a gradually evolving narrative - which one day will lead to closure of the case. I think he has had to change tack a couple of times and probably the conclusion is still not clear, even to him and his directors at this stage.

I wonder if Op Grange will go very quiet until the outcome of the 'DAMAGES trial ' e.g. Sep or October. I guess so.

One thing we need to bear in mind is the close and detailed planning of the Metropolitan Police together with the BBC in preparing that CrimeWatch McCann special on 14 October 2013.

It was skilfully promoted beforehand in the press and with repeated BBC trailers.

There was extreme hype: 'breakthrough', 'dramatic development', 'revelation moment', 'arrests soon' etc. etc.

This was a programme designed to impress itself on the minds of the British people - and how it did, with 6.7 million viewers, an all-time CrimeWatch record, by a country mile.

It is claimed that it was 6 months in preparation (thus: April to October 2013) but there is evidence that it was set in motion well before that, possibly January 2013. The BBC admitted it had spent £1 million on it, the Met must have spent as much, in terms of senior officer time alone.

Who initiated this expensive and much-trumpeted venture?

Who designed and controlled the script?

Who scripted the reconstruction?

Who decided to leave out all the chnages of story?

Who decided to leave out all the contradictions?

Who decided to ignore the 20 contradictions about the alleged visit of David Payne to see Dr Kate McCann at around 6.30pm on 3 May 2007? - so many that it is certain that no such visit ever took place?

What checking did the BBC do about the Payne visit?

Who decided to use two e-fits which could not possily have been drawn up by the Irish family?

Who decided to refer to these two efits as 'the same man' when plainly they do not look anything like 'the same man'?

In fact, what was its precise purpose?

And many more such questions.

Behind that CrimeWatch broadcast, and supporting it wholeheartedly, were, in effect, all the following:

The Met Police
The BBC
The British Prime Minister
The British government
The mainstream British media
The Murdoch empire
The McCann Team.

All united and working closely together to find the abductor.

Which is Redwood's remit.

Since CrimeWatch, Redwood's narrative has moved on to:

"We've got a pretty good idea who the abductor might be - now just close your eyes and minds, relax, that's good, yes, continue to relax, you are in a deep sleep, now listen to me carefully - and now bring into focus...a smelly bin-man who's been to a dozen homes trying to molest children...and now think about my ride in an Alouette Mark III helicopter with a camera...and then my ground-penetrating radar thingy...all those pics you saw in the papers of my men and the Portuguese police with pickaxes, shovels, augers, tents and cameras, bags of earth and soil...think about me bringing in forensic anthropologists...you will believe my abduction hypothesis...and you will know and remember that I am on the case and will find whodunnit, even if I have to spend another £10 million and another three years to do so...like me, you know that Madeleine was abducted..."

by plebgate 14.07.14 12:15

I'm still wondering why CW wasn't shown in Portugal. The child disappeared from Portugal but the programme wasn't shown there. UH???????

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 12:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Well, I certainly am a believer in the Evolving Narrative. Redwood is being tasked with pushing a gradually evolving narrative - which one day will lead to closure of the case. I think he has had to change tack a couple of times and probably the conclusion is still not clear, even to him and his directors at this stage.

I wonder if Op Grange will go very quiet until the outcome of the 'DAMAGES trial ' e.g. Sep or October. I guess so.
One thing we need to bear in mind is the close and detailed planning of the Metropolitan Police together with the BBC in preparing that CrimeWatch McCann special on 14 October 2013.

It was skilfully promoted beforehand in the press and with repeated BBC trailers.

There was extreme hype: 'breakthrough', 'dramatic development', 'revelation moment', 'arrests soon' etc. etc.

This was a programme designed to impress itself on the minds of the British people - and how it did, with 6.7 million viewers, an all-time CrimeWatch record, by a country mile.

It is claimed that it was 6 months in preparation (thus: April to October 2013) but there is evidence that it was set in motion well before that, possibly January 2013. The BBC admitted it had spent £1 million on it, the Met must have spent as much, in terms of senior officer time alone.

Who initiated this expensive and much-trumpeted venture?

Who designed and controlled the script?

Who scripted the reconstruction?

Who decided to leave out all the chnages of story?

Who decided to leave out all the contradictions?

Who decided to ignore the 20 contradictions about the alleged visit of David Payne to see Dr Kate McCann at around 6.30pm on 3 May 2007? - so many that it is certain that no such visit ever took place?

What checking did the BBC do about the Payne visit?

Who decided to use two e-fits which could not possily have been drawn up by the Irish family?

Who decided to refer to these two efits as 'the same man' when plainly they do not look anything like 'the same man'?

In fact, what was its precise purpose?

And many more such questions.

Behind that CrimeWatch broadcast, and supporting it wholeheartedly, were, in effect, all the following:

The Met Police
The BBC
The British Prime Minister
The British government
The mainstream British media
The Murdoch empire
The McCann Team.

All united and working closely together to find the abductor.

Which is Redwood's remit.

Since CrimeWatch, Redwood's narrative has moved on to:

"We've got a pretty good idea who the abductor might be - now just close your eyes and minds, relax, that's good, yes, continue to relax, you are in a deep sleep, now listen to me carefully - and now bring into focus...a smelly bin-man who's been to a dozen homes trying to molest children...and now think about my ride in an Alouette Mark III helicopter with a camera...and then my ground-penetrating radar thingy...all those pics you saw in the papers of my men and the Portuguese police with pickaxes, shovels, augers, tents and cameras, bags of earth and soil...think about me bringing in forensic anthropologists...you will believe my abduction hypothesis...and you will know and remember that I am on the case and will find whodunnit, even if I have to spend another £10 million and another three years to do so...like me, you know that Madeleine was abducted..."

Who is being protected such that 'the resolution of Madeliene's disappearance' is being played out and stage managed like this. The cost and people involved is mind blowing.

I agree our perception of the case is being 'managed' . I believe it si being managed by intelligent people several layers up from the likes of Redwood. I dont believe they will succeed - ultimately all will be revealed although possible in many years time.
It always comes back to just who is being protected here? (Certainly not the Mc Canns - although they receive protection indirectly as a by-product)

by **PeterMac** 14.07.14 12:45

Arguments come and go
Tannerman came, and went
Conspiracy theories are born, and then die
Tractormen, smelly pot belly men are invented, and then quietly put out with the bins
Smithmen are promulgated but go nowhere
Fields and hills are dug, but nothing is found.
Huge rewards are offered, but not one person ever comes forward
and so it goes on.

But we are still left with the nucleus.
When you dissect a cell, you take away the membrane and all the gubbins and “cellular giblets” , until you are left with - the nucleus. The bit which contains ALL the information.
Which contains the DNA.

And the basic facts contained within that nucleus, facts which no one has adequately explained, still less explained away are

Ludicrous time line
Ludicrous explanations
Shutters
Curtains
Ludicrous weather reports
Lies by almost all of the group
Massive gaps in the story
Dog alerts
Forged Last Photo
and a number of other things we all know about.

by Upsy Daisy 14.07.14 14:46

Didn't MI5 start up the CIA? Is not British Intelligence rumoured to be the best there is, in the world ? Are you telling me that these 'best in the world of intelligence, creators of the CIA' unable to 'crack this case' like they have been, to-date?? They all know what happened, they are all playing their part in a big giant hoax-type play, aimed at the establishment's need to assess how stupid we all are......'errm, so where are we at now in this exercise Agent X?' , 'well, Sir, we have so far established that among the age group 35 - 100, we have found that this lot still possesses the ability to smell a rat and still 'aren't buying it', and that the age group 25-35 are taking a little bit of persuasion and we have estimated that they are taking on average, double the amount of time of the aforementioned astute and mostly awake 35-100 age group at realising there is a coverup...however the good news is that we have discovered that in the age bracket 16-25 are falling for it hook, line and sinker....without any fight at all.' 'Well, thank you Agent X, I shall submit this month's work-in-progress. I can see we are on track, as predicted in our 50year plan, to successfully fool the entire nation by the year 2030 of absolutely anything and everything we deem necessary in order for world domination and possession of all citizens' minds. Keep up the good work.' 'Thank you, Sir...'

wft

by lj 14.07.14 15:33

Miraflores wrote:
Neat, tidy, parents exonerated, case closed, detectives reassigned.

Fund closed.

I bet the funds will continue to live on: to help us find Madeleine's body, to help us defeat those who slander her name.

by jeanmonroe 14.07.14 15:57

Miraflores wrote:
Neat, tidy, parents exonerated, case closed, detectives reassigned.

How can the parent EVER be exonerated?

By his own admission, GM, has stated HE was the very last person to see a 'live' Madeleine, in her bed.

Madeleine has NOT been 'seen' SINCE, after GM seeing Madeleine asleep in her bed, by ANYONE on this PLANET.

NOT even by McCann's friend JT, according to DCI Redwood of OG.

How can the G McCann possibly be exonerated from possible 'involvement' in the 'disappearance' of Madeleine?

Because HE 'said' so?

"It weren't me, honest"

I don't think so!

by Justformaddie 14.07.14 16:32

Eddie and keela are the ones that's blocking their route out of this, hence gm bringing the subject up at the trial, smartly too, as someone else pointed out that he had said GA exaggerated the dogs findings, thus not lying under oath. Although I think it's impossible for the burglar break in and changing his mind when he seen maddie and killed her instead then took the body with him to bury her, IMO that's a loada s##t, k&g would jump on that story, or any story that excludes them. On the up side, gm feeling that he had to mention Eddie and Keela shows that the mc and OG aren't working together just as closely as some might think. No one knows we might just get real justice for maddie in the end.
All IMO :fingerscrossed

by Upsy Daisy 14.07.14 16:47

I don't understand GM's motive there at all, other than his own sorry PR since he is such egotist, as the information about the samples taken from the apartment 5a are all in the police files, thus are already stored as evidence, by the PJ....what is the man on.....I don't know anymore, this is driving me nuts.....whoaa ..need a cup ow teeeeeeeeaaaa, me heid's beelin'..... splat

by LittleMissy 14.07.14 17:40

How very depressing this is looking :/ As upsy daisy rightly states, british intelligence rumoured to be best in the world & THIS CROCK OF SHIT IS WHAT THEY COME UP WITH ??!!!!! Beggars belief, it really is shocking. Surely the investigation should start at the beginning......the beginning being 3rd May 2007 & the glaring discrepancies of those present (Tapas cronies). How is it possible for british authorities to seemingly ignore the blatent discrepancies & ever changing statements of Mccans & Tapas crew ????
After the debacle of the whitewash of Hillsborough, & disgust when truth finally came out (only after years of campaigning by the bereaved families), it really does beggar belief that british establishment are going to embark on deleted of this magnatude.

Hello everyone btw*waves* I am a new member but have been informing myself on this matter for some time now, have read extensively(thanks Tony Bennet for Mccan Files & everything I have learnt there) Wink

by Synes 14.07.14 18:44

GM only disputed the fact that the dogs had found blood from M, this leaves the cadaver odour which fits with Tonys post.
Blood would be a problem for the McCanns as this would have been noticed at some point during the days after M's 'vanishing' and thus reported by them, that is had an 'intruder' killed M and left blood, as obviously no murderous intruder is going to clean up after him/herself and risk leaving more evidence or being caught in the act....the cadaver odour not so, an intruder did it and removed the body shortly after, leaving no trace, no need to explain away evidence. Everything else, curtains, shelf, memory lapses, is circumstantial and can be put down to shock and panic of finding their child missing.

by Guest 14.07.14 18:57

Synes wrote:GM only disputed the fact that the dogs had found blood from M, this leaves the cadaver odour which fits with Tonys post.
Blood would be a problem for the McCanns as this would have been noticed at some point during the days after M's 'vanishing' and thus reported by them, that is had an 'intruder' killed M and left blood, as obviously no murderous intruder is going to clean up after him/herself and risk leaving more evidence or being caught in the act....the cadaver odour not so, an intruder did it and removed the body shortly after, leaving no trace, no need to explain away evidence. Everything else, curtains, shelf, memory lapses, is circumstantial and can be put down to shock and panic of finding their child missing.

even washing the curtains big grin

by Guest 14.07.14 19:09

Call me stupid, but I've never found solid proof for the washed curtains.
Anyone?

Not that's important. There's many more important indications / proof. I'd only want to avoid, for the matter of a solid case, forum myths. So, again, if anyone has proof, please produce. It would only strengthen the case.

by Synes 14.07.14 19:15

"even washing the curtains"

Again, circumstantial without the blood evidence.
However.. In my mind, the cadaver odour in the car remains beyond explanation in Tonys theory. How can this continue to be overlooked?

by Guest 14.07.14 19:52

Châtelaine wrote:Call me stupid, but I've never found solid proof for the washed curtains.
Anyone?

Not that's important. There's many more important indications / proof. I'd only want to avoid, for the matter of a solid case, forum myths. So, again, if anyone has proof, please produce. It would only strengthen the case.

Sorry Synes, Chatelaine I should not have remarked on the curtains without a source.
I always thought that the curtains and surrounding wall had been washed, it's just such a bizarre thing to do on holiday with three children it stuck in my mind.

I have found this so far from Joana Morais (under the section Blood on the Curtains):-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But obviously unless it is in the PJ files themselves then it could still be a forum myth.
I will try and find the PJ source later this evening, only that would confirm it.

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact

by **Tony Bennett** 14.07.14 21:22

I have been thinking of ways of shortening and summarisng the 'narrative' to date.

The shortest I can get is:

Thursday 3 May 2007: "Madeleine was abducted by Tannerman and we must find Tannerman"

This stayed in place for over 6 years and 5 months, though Tannerman was manifestly a fabrication to all those who had eyes to see, and was finally buried by the McCann Team themselves in August 2009 (nearly 5 years ago) when Edgar said Tanner might have seen a woman carrying a child, not a man.

Then came CrimeWatch on

Monday 14 October 2013: When DCI Redwood said: "Madeleine was abducted by ~~Tannerman~~ Smithman and we must find ~~Tannerman~~ Smithman".

Although that is not strictly correct, as Redwood's more detailed current position would appear to be:

1. Madeleine was abducted ('as per my remit')

2. The abduction took place between 9.10pm and 10.00pm

3. It could well have been Smithman but it might have been someone else - we need to eliminate Smithman if it wasn't him

4. It's possible she was dead before she 'left the apartment' (TRANSLATION: She was murdered in the apartment by the abductor)

5. With my careful analysis of the three strands of the investigation, 'which has never been done before', a few dozen people are potentially in the frame, I'm gradually narrowing it down to just a few or maybe one smelly bin-man in particular, give me a few more million quid and a bit more time, a chance to do a few more very public searches, ask a few more people 253 rogatory questions, painstakingly analyse thousands more cell-phones etc. and eventually my 38-strong team will come up with the answer.

+++++

I will add a prediction:

I think Grange will announce their conclusions some time before February 2015 (3 months before the General Election) and that Bernard Hogan-Howe will announce at the same time that Grange is to be wound up. That's if BHH is still in the job by then, as he surely can't survive many more corruption scandals

by plebgate 14.07.14 21:52

LittleMissy wrote:How very depressing this is looking :/ As upsy daisy rightly states, british intelligence rumoured to be best in the world & THIS CROCK OF SHIT IS WHAT THEY COME UP WITH ??!!!!! Beggars belief, it really is shocking. Surely the investigation should start at the beginning......the beginning being 3rd May 2007 & the glaring discrepancies of those present (Tapas cronies). How is it possible for british authorities to seemingly ignore the blatent discrepancies & ever changing statements of Mccans & Tapas crew ????
After the debacle of the whitewash of Hillsborough, & disgust when truth finally came out (only after years of campaigning by the bereaved families), it really does beggar belief that british establishment are going to embark on deleted of this magnatude.

Hello everyone btw*waves* I am a new member but have been informing myself on this matter for some time now, have read extensively(thanks Tony Bennet for Mccan Files & everything I have learnt there)

Waves back to you too. Wink

by endgame 14.07.14 21:54

Tony Bennett wrote:I have been thinking of ways of shortening and summarisng the 'narrative' to date.

The shortest I can get is:

Thursday 3 May 2007: "Madeleine was abducted by Tannerman and we must find Tannerman"

This stayed in place for over 6 years and 5 months, though Tannerman was manifestly a fabrication to all those who had eyes to see, and was finally buried by the McCann Team themselves in August 2009 (nearly 5 years ago) when Edgar said Tanner might have seen a woman carrying a child, not a man.

Then came CrimeWatch on

Monday 14 October 2013: When DCI Redwood said: "Madeleine was abducted by ~~Tannerman~~ Smithman and we must find ~~Tannerman~~ Smithman".

Although that is not strictly correct, as Redwood's more detailed current position would appear to be:

1. Madeleine was abducted ('as per my remit')

2. The abduction took place between 9.10pm and 10.00pm

3. It could well have been Smithman but it might have been someone else - we need to eliminate Smithman if it wasn't him

4. It's possible she was dead before she 'left the apartment' (TRANSLATION: She was murdered in the apartment by the abductor)

5. With my careful analysis of the three strands of the investigation, 'which has never been done before', a few dozen people are potentially in the frame, I'm gradually narrowing it down to just a few or maybe one smelly bin-man in particular, give me a few more million quid and a bit more time, a chance to do a few more very public searches, ask a few more people 253 rogatory questions, painstakingly analyse thousands more cell-phones etc. and eventually my 38-strong team will come up with the answer.

+++++

I will add a prediction:

I think Grange will announce their conclusions some time before February 2015 (3 months before the General Election) and that Bernard Hogan-Howe will announce at the same time that Grange is to be wound up. That's if BHH is still in the job by then, as he surely can't survive many more corruption scandals

Ah Tony, I see they've fooled you too and you have utterly failed to grasp the master plan that lies behind the facade. He has played the most brilliant game with all of us, pretending all along that he was a corrupt and incompetent fool when in fact, as will be revealed, he was the most briliant detective the world has ever known. He's taken you in right and proper. [Serious irony alert!]