Re: Libel trial summing up - daily mail

by PMR 12.12.14 19:54

Oh FFS

by Liz Eagles 12.12.14 19:58

PMR wrote:Oh FFS

I take it you disagree then. big grin

by jeanmonroe 12.12.14 20:04

misogyny?

Mis-ogy-ny.

Ain't that the woman from New York that makes pasties?

"Oggy, Oggy, Oggy"

"Oi, Oi, Oi"

by Guest 12.12.14 20:05

aquila wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:"Redwood, you and your team's 'investigation', IS a f****** EMBARRASSMENT, to the Metropolitan Police Service"

That's NOT me saying that!

But a serving offcer in the MPS!
OG have now brought out media babe Nicola Wall - and before anyone feels the need to bleet about misogyny, Nicola Wall as a DCI gave an interview with Vogue. This is a female police officer paid by the UK taxpayer to do her job just like all other female officers do. Get a result, do your best, get paid, go home and have a private life.

I've read upthread that Nicola Wall was involved in the Tia Sharp case - the bungled case from which Bernard Hogan Howe says lessons were learned.

It's still to me bringing out a pre-conditioned, pre-encouraged media babe, who incidentally (and I don't give a toss what people think of this) thought it appropriate not tie her hair back (see media savvy MET/government PR - paid for by UK taxpayer) and walk into Faro alongside her soon-to-be retired colleague with the lowest personal profile possible.

Oh, the MET and the ptb have just introduced a new song 'here come the girls'. This is misogyny in its truest form imo.

I await Woofer's disgust.

May I suggest you keep your offensively sexist character-assassinating words away from this public forum.
Or perhaps you care nothing about this forum's reputation.

by Liz Eagles 12.12.14 20:06

TexMac wrote:
aquila wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:"Redwood, you and your team's 'investigation', IS a f****** EMBARRASSMENT, to the Metropolitan Police Service"

That's NOT me saying that!

But a serving offcer in the MPS!
OG have now brought out media babe Nicola Wall - and before anyone feels the need to bleet about misogyny, Nicola Wall as a DCI gave an interview with Vogue. This is a female police officer paid by the UK taxpayer to do her job just like all other female officers do. Get a result, do your best, get paid, go home and have a private life.

I've read upthread that Nicola Wall was involved in the Tia Sharp case - the bungled case from which Bernard Hogan Howe says lessons were learned.

It's still to me bringing out a pre-conditioned, pre-encouraged media babe, who incidentally (and I don't give a toss what people think of this) thought it appropriate not tie her hair back (see media savvy MET/government PR - paid for by UK taxpayer) and walk into Faro alongside her soon-to-be retired colleague with the lowest personal profile possible.

Oh, the MET and the ptb have just introduced a new song 'here come the girls'. This is misogyny in its truest form imo.

I await Woofer's disgust.

May I suggest you keep your offensively sexist character-assassinating words away from this public forum.
Or perhaps you care nothing about this forum's reputation.

Panto season has arrived I see.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.14 20:12

Joss wrote:
I'm not so sure the Tanner sighting was a red herring in lieu of this information:

Pictured: The innocent father who was key suspect in Maddie investigation for SIX YEARS until he was cleared by his daughter's 'frilly pyjamas'

Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence
DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'
He'd been seen carrying daughter by Jane Tanner, a friend of Gerry and Kate
Little girl had distinctive frilly pyjamas that he also brought to Scotland Yard
Turned investigation on its head and moved kidnapping from 9.15pm to 10pm

Joss,

May I ask whether you have ever been aware of the media and/or senior police officers in this country giving us disinformation rather than information?

by Liz Eagles 12.12.14 20:30

jeanmonroe wrote:misogyny?

Mis-ogy-ny.

Ain't that the woman from New York that makes pasties?

"Oggy, Oggy, Oggy"

"Oi, Oi, Oi"

Pasties come from Cornwall, patsies come from Scotland Yard.

by **sharonl** 12.12.14 20:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
Joss wrote:
I'm not so sure the Tanner sighting was a red herring in lieu of this information:

Pictured: The innocent father who was key suspect in Maddie investigation for SIX YEARS until he was cleared by his daughter's 'frilly pyjamas'

Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence
DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'
He'd been seen carrying daughter by Jane Tanner, a friend of Gerry and Kate
Little girl had distinctive frilly pyjamas that he also brought to Scotland Yard
Turned investigation on its head and moved kidnapping from 9.15pm to 10pm

Joss,

May I ask whether you have ever been aware of the media and/or senior police officers in this country giving us disinformation rather than information?

Add to that the allegation that Jane Tanner didn't leave the table that night. If that is true, and I suspect that it is, then tanner man would be pure fabrication.

by canada12 12.12.14 20:47

sharonl wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Joss wrote:
I'm not so sure the Tanner sighting was a red herring in lieu of this information:

Pictured: The innocent father who was key suspect in Maddie investigation for SIX YEARS until he was cleared by his daughter's 'frilly pyjamas'

Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence
DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'
He'd been seen carrying daughter by Jane Tanner, a friend of Gerry and Kate
Little girl had distinctive frilly pyjamas that he also brought to Scotland Yard
Turned investigation on its head and moved kidnapping from 9.15pm to 10pm

Joss,

May I ask whether you have ever been aware of the media and/or senior police officers in this country giving us disinformation rather than information?

Add to that the allegation that Jane Tanner didn't leave the table that night. If that is true, and I suspect that it is, then tanner man would be pure fabrication.

Ah yes, but who's going to stand up and say, you made that up, Scotland Yard!
How can they prove Scotland Yard invented their tannerman without, logically, implicating themselves as having lied?

by joyce1938 12.12.14 21:32

no 1 and no 2 pyjamas were of the style we had seen and one set I think were new ones sourced from Marks and Spencers , saw a phto of the macs holding them up to be seen,not certain if one pair could have been same style and for younger child ? I recall that as was sourced later ,that the fastening on top ,was not in same place as other pair . Its amazing what jumps back to mind really,once the subject is revisited .joyce 1938

by margaret 12.12.14 21:35

How about some of you wait and see the outcome of this case before you start ridiculing people?

Give this new DCI a chance FFS, none of us know what the outcome is going to be yet....

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.14 21:57

canada12 wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Joss wrote:
I'm not so sure the Tanner sighting was a red herring in lieu of this information:

Pictured: The innocent father who was key suspect in Maddie investigation for SIX YEARS until he was cleared by his daughter's 'frilly pyjamas'

Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence
DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'
He'd been seen carrying daughter by Jane Tanner, a friend of Gerry and Kate
Little girl had distinctive frilly pyjamas that he also brought to Scotland Yard
Turned investigation on its head and moved kidnapping from 9.15pm to 10pm

Joss,

May I ask whether you have ever been aware of the media and/or senior police officers in this country giving us disinformation rather than information?

Add to that the allegation that Jane Tanner didn't leave the table that night. If that is true, and I suspect that it is, then tanner man would be pure fabrication.
Ah yes, but who's going to stand up and say, you made that up, Scotland Yard!

How can they prove Scotland Yard invented their Tannerman without, logically, implicating themselves as having lied?

On the most recent Robert Murat thread on this forum, I posted earlier today a long and masterfully-researched piece by Paulo Reis, published by him in April 2009. It dealt in full with how Murat was first accused, and the role of Jane Tanner and the Tapas group in accusing him, and it dealt in detail with all of Jane Tanner's statements (and a few other things). I would heartily commend Paulo Reis's article to all, it is one of the finest pieces of original research ever put together on the Madeleine McCann case [ it's on page 8 of this thread: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]

Reis noted this:

In the early hours of Friday 4th May 2007, Miss Tanner approached GNR Officer, Nelson da Costa (statements at folios 417, 1340 and 3285) and told him that she had seen an “individual” running and carrying a “child” who was “clearly” wearing pyjamas. The Officer did not consider the sighting credible because when he asked Miss Tanner to describe the “individual” she was unable to do so: excusing herself because it had been very dark. The Officer wondered, if it had been so dark, how she had been able to “clearly” see the child’s pyjamas.

So here we have it on Day One. An ordinary Portuguese copper, Nelson da Costa, using his police officer's experience and training, has sussed that Jane Tanner is fabricating her 'sighting'. Everything that Jane Tanner has said since that moment only serves IMO to prove further that she fabricated every single bit of her sighting.

DCI Andy Redwood IMO knows that. Yet he has the bare-faced effrontery to try and fool us by pretending that he has found...who? - a bloke Jane Tanner never saw!

The evidence is that Redwood lied - I am only going on the available evidence in saying that.

And I suggest that in the very same programme (Crimewatch 14/10/13) he also lied about those two 'Smithman' e-fits. I suggest he knows that those two e-fits - of two different men - were not drawn up by the Smiths. They could not have been, no-one could draw up something like that on year after seeing a bloke for a second or two in the dark.

@ canada12

You wrote: "Who's going to stand up and say, you made that up, Scotland Yard!"

REPLY: I've now answered that.

@ margaret

Wall was offered the job of heading the Madeleine McCann investigation. No doubt months ago. The official remit of the investigation is: "To investigate the abduction..." She had two choices:

1. OK, fine, I'll do it

or

2. I'll only do it if you change that highly restrictive remit.

She chose Option 1, otherwise lnown as "The Poisoned Chalice"

by joyce1938 12.12.14 22:06

just another thought, does it seem more possible that j tanner did not see anything that night ,but what shedid know was that the pyjamas that the kids wore were of the type that she described now after that comes the man who felt it may have been him with his own child ,and yes dressed in the p js that certainly don't match the actual ones worn by maddie . He has shown what his child wore and even a picture to prove it ? So he really has let it be known ,it wasn't him that J tanner saw ? Doesn't mean he was lying ,he may have walked that way sometime ,but not seen . It feels like yet another lie and cant understand why it would be backed up and photos shown ? joyce1938 hope I have explained this

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.14 22:28

joyce1938 wrote:Just another thought, does it seem more possible that j tanner did not see anything that night, but what she did know was that the pyjamas that the kids wore were of the type that she described

REPLY: Her fabricated sighting was clearly concocted together with the Tapas group, so that Russell O'Brien could show a timeline (weel two timelines, actually) when the police called - written down on the ripped-off cover of Madeleine's Actiivty Sticker Book which, it must be presumed, was handed to him by the McCanns.

Of course she had been told exactly what to say about Madeleine's pyjamas. After all this, she tried to pretend that she never mentioned her sighting to Kate McCann that night, as she didn't want to upset her any more.

And of course, the BBC Crimewatch Team who worked hand-in-hand with both the McCann Team and DCI Andy Redwood never showed those bits in their highly selective reconstruction, did they? Nor did the BBC choose to tell us about the 20 contradictions between David Payne and Kate McCann about his non-existent visit to Apartment G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May. That Crimewatch programme was an exercise in unadulterated disinformation

Now after that comes the man who felt it may have been him with his own child, and yes dressed in the pyjamas that certainly don't match the actual ones worn by Maddie. He has shown what his child wore and even a picture to prove it So he really has let it be known, it wasn't him that J Tanner saw? Doesn't mean he was lying, he may have walked that way sometime, but not seen. It feels like yet another lie and can't understand why it would be backed up and photos shown? joyce1938    Hope I have explained this

REPLY: The blurred and double-image photo was a simple trick. "There you are - LOOK! - he's real".

They are taking us all for idiots. And have been doing for 7 years

by Woofer 12.12.14 22:37

This thread has wandered off a bit from the Trial, but I must counter a couple of things TB has stated :-

" Everything that Jane Tanner has said since that moment only serves IMO to prove further that she fabricated every single bit of her sighting.

DCI Andy Redwood IMO knows that. Yet he has the bare-faced effrontery to try and fool us by pretending that he has found...who? - a bloke Jane Tanner never saw!

Tony - he is allowed to fool people - he`s a policeman and why do you automatically think he is trying to fool you - he may be trying to fool someone else - that is his prerogative - you want him to solve the crime don`t you? Or should he tell you everything honestly that he`s doing?

The evidence is that Redwood lied - I am only going on the available evidence in saying that.

Tony - what`s so wrong with a copper lying? Would you rather he told you and everyone else the truth?

And I suggest that in the very same programme (Crimewatch 14/10/13) he also lied about those two 'Smithman' e-fits. I suggest he knows that those two e-fits - of two different men - were not drawn up by the Smiths. They could not have been, no-one could draw up something like that on year after seeing a bloke for a second or two in the dark. "

Tony - so what if he lied - you don`t know his plans. Remember it has been confirmed in your FOI request that the efits are of one man. And I (and many others) disagree that efits can be drawn up a long time after whether only from a glance or in the semi-dark.

by Realist 12.12.14 23:17

Woofer wrote:

Tony - what`s so wrong with a copper lying? Would you rather he told you and everyone else the truth?

Well Woofer, for a start it has lead to many miscarriages of justice whereby innocent people have spent sometimes decades languishing in British gaols.

In response to Josh's query, no, they don't have juries in Portuguese criminal trials, or that is what I have been lead to believe. No doubt another member with more experience of the Portuguese criminal justice system will verify or contradict this assertion.

by Khaleesi 12.12.14 23:25

Realist wrote:
Woofer wrote:

Tony - what`s so wrong with a copper lying? Would you rather he told you and everyone else the truth?

Well Woofer, for a start it has lead to many miscarriages of justice whereby innocent people have spent sometimes decades languishing in British gaols.

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?

by Woofer 13.12.14 0:55

Realist wrote:
Woofer wrote:

Tony - what`s so wrong with a copper lying? Would you rather he told you and everyone else the truth?

Well Woofer, for a start it has lead to many miscarriages of justice whereby innocent people have spent sometimes decades languishing in British gaols.

In response to Josh's query, no, they don't have juries in Portuguese criminal trials, or that is what I have been lead to believe. No doubt another member with more experience of the Portuguese criminal justice system will verify or contradict this assertion.

That`s not what I meant Realist - of course they shouldn`t lie in a court - but this is to the media and/or supposedly TB. The media and/or general public can hardly complain because the police lied in a media statement.

by Joss 13.12.14 1:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Joss wrote:
I'm not so sure the Tanner sighting was a red herring in lieu of this information:

Pictured: The innocent father who was key suspect in Maddie investigation for SIX YEARS until he was cleared by his daughter's 'frilly pyjamas'

Mystery Briton even posed in clothes he wore that night to prove innocence
DCI Redwood described his decision to come forward as 'revelation moment'
He'd been seen carrying daughter by Jane Tanner, a friend of Gerry and Kate
Little girl had distinctive frilly pyjamas that he also brought to Scotland Yard
Turned investigation on its head and moved kidnapping from 9.15pm to 10pm

Joss,

May I ask whether you have ever been aware of the media and/or senior police officers in this country giving us disinformation rather than information?

Hi Tony, Yes i am aware of the Disinfo agents, not just in the U.K. but other countries as well. Seems its a worldwide epedemic.

by Realist 13.12.14 2:16

Khaleesi wrote:

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?

But it isn't just the media they lie to, is it now, although the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act did slow them down a tad.

It wasn't just the Tannerman stooge they lied about in this instance, they also lied about the later sighting which they know to be irrelevant, not to mention they also misled the public by requesting information about other fictitious characters. After all, the Crimewatch programme was purported to be designed to elicit relevant information from the public, as opposed to briefing the media.

by Joss 13.12.14 2:48

Realist wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?

But it isn't just the media they lie to, is it now, although the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act did slow them down a tad.

It wasn't just the Tannerman stooge they lied about in this instance, they also lied about the later sighting which they know to be irrelevant, not to mention they also misled the public by requesting information about other fictitious characters. After all, the Crimewatch programme was purported to be designed to elicit relevant information from the public, as opposed to briefing the media.

Now Why would they do that, LOL. I think we all realize by now its to get the McC's & Co. off the hook for those less observant in this missing child case.
After all the Police forces are also a Government body that work for the Govt.

by Joss 13.12.14 4:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:Just another thought, does it seem more possible that j tanner did not see anything that night, but what she did know was that the pyjamas that the kids wore were of the type that she described

REPLY: Her fabricated sighting was clearly concocted together with the Tapas group, so that Russell O'Brien could show a timeline (weel two timelines, actually) when the police called - written down on the ripped-off cover of Madeleine's Actiivty Sticker Book which, it must be presumed, was handed to him by the McCanns.

Of course she had been told exactly what to say about Madeleine's pyjamas. After all this, she tried to pretend that she never mentioned her sighting to Kate McCann that night, as she didn't want to upset her any more.

And of course, the BBC Crimewatch Team who worked hand-in-hand with both the McCann Team and DCI Andy Redwood never showed those bits in their highly selective reconstruction, did they? Nor did the BBC choose to tell us about the 20 contradictions between David Payne and Kate McCann about his non-existent visit to Apartment G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May. That Crimewatch programme was an exercise in unadulterated disinformation

Now after that comes the man who felt it may have been him with his own child, and yes dressed in the pyjamas that certainly don't match the actual ones worn by Maddie. He has shown what his child wore and even a picture to prove it So he really has let it be known, it wasn't him that J Tanner saw? Doesn't mean he was lying, he may have walked that way sometime, but not seen. It feels like yet another lie and can't understand why it would be backed up and photos shown? joyce1938    Hope I have explained this

REPLY: The blurred and double-image photo was a simple trick. "There you are - LOOK! - he's real".

They are taking us all for idiots. And have been doing for 7 years

Definitely have to agree to "They are taking us all for Idiots", and wouldn't be the first or last time that has happened IMO. They are only going to tell us what they think we should hear, and god only knows what goes on behind closed doors. But then as we have heard "confusion is good", sure it is for all the lying and spin in this case. And i think that is why we will never get the truth and it wouldn't be the first case of a cover up, again only IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.12.14 9:20

Khaleesi wrote:
Realist wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - what`s so wrong with a copper lying? Would you rather he told you and everyone else the truth?

Well Woofer, for a start it has lead to many miscarriages of justice whereby innocent people have spent sometimes decades languishing in British gaols.

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?

@ Woofer and @ Khaleesi

What a bizarre couple of posts from Woofer and Khaleesi.

So, Woofer, you see nothing wrong in a police officer lying? Fascinating.

And Khaleesi also thinks that the police should not always tell the truth.

What happens in a typical investigation, where the police need the public's help, is that they will tell the public the truth about certain things, but withhold the truth about other matters within their investigation. And of course I fully support such a strategy. But they do not tell lies.

Can either of you - or anyone else for that matter - give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case?

What we are discussing here is my claim that DCI Andy Redwood has deliberately lied in at least two respects:

1. He said that 'Crecheman' had come forward. I do not believe there is any such man as 'crecheman' who was carrying his daughter in the dark in her pyjamas without a buggy through the streets of Praia da Luz at around 9.15pm on 3 May 2007

2. He said that the two e-fits - seemingly of different men - were produced by the Smiths. I do not believe him, even if he has confirmed this in answer to my FOI Act request.

If he has lied, he did so to an audience of 6.7 million Britons.

And if he has lied, he did not do so IMO to try and solve the case but very much the reverse - in order to promote what looks like the emerging Grange theory, namely that Madeleine was murdered by a burglar between 9.15pm and 10.00pm.

And if people believe what Redwood said on Crimewatch a year ago, let's recall that the BBC helped him do it by spending over a million pounds over a period of more than six months preparing their programme, which included a highly selective reconstruction, using paid actors, which gave the 6.7 million viewers a wholly distorted view of the actual events of 3 May.

A true disinfomation exercise performed in front of 6.7 million people

by Montclair 13.12.14 10:08

As others have stated the police are not obligated to keep the public or the media up to date on an on going investigation. I know in Portugal, the PJ carry out their investigations in secret, with no press conferences and updates as they do in the UK, and in the end the public is informed of the outcome. The biggest exception to this was the Maddie case, which turned into a circus and hindered the outcome. An example, in Portugal, is that of a teenager who went missing and this disappearance was reported in the newspapers. The next we knew, several months later, was that the PJ was able to find her alive in Spain where, IIRC, she was kept in captivity. The parents stated that they decided not to speak to the press about the case in order to allow the police to do their job and which was successful.

As I remember it was PeterMac who had posted on this subject before. The police do not answer to the press and public, only the CPS. Can you imagine how an investigation could go wrong if all information were made public, giving, for example, the perpetrator the chance to destroy evidence or even to flee to Brazil.

by sami 13.12.14 10:16

Khaleesi wrote:

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?

If Police are going to speak to the media, they should deal in facts. Their investigations are not a reality tv programme. They have no place declaring people innocent or guilty on tv, until such time as somebody is arrested, charged and found guilty by a court of law.

Redwood became involved in a soap opera, the advertising of his "revelation moment" on a regular basis the week before the airing of Crimewatch was akin to advertising the Eastenders Christmas Day who dunnit episode.

His self proclaimed revelation moment was then put forward on live tv, alongside a "reconstruction" which resembled a low budget soap, starring actors whose previous roles included blockbusters such as Tight Rider sad

The "revelation moment" was indeed jaw dropping, only because it is so improbable it is fighting with the abduction theory for the number one spot of impossible things that occurred in PDL on that night.

So, you think all of that was necessary simply to make the real criminals feel secure, that they are safe and free from suspicion, all the while Redwood is plotting a cunning plan to swoop and arrest them ?

Serrrriously ? nah

by Liz Eagles 13.12.14 10:20

Montclair wrote:As others have stated the police are not obligated to keep the public or the media up to date on an on going investigation. I know in Portugal, the PJ carry out their investigations in secret, with no press conferences and updates as they do in the UK, and in the end the public is informed of the outcome. The biggest exception to this was the Maddie case, which turned into a circus and hindered the outcome. An example, in Portugal, is that of a teenager who went missing and this disappearance was reported in the newspapers. The next we knew, several months later, was that the PJ was able to find her alive in Spain where, IIRC, she was kept in captivity. The parents stated that they decided not to speak to the press about the case in order to allow the police to do their job and which was successful.

As I remember it was PeterMac who had posted on this subject before. The police do not answer to the press and public, only the CPS. Can you imagine how an investigation could go wrong if all information were made public, giving, for example, the perpetrator the chance to destroy evidence or even to flee to Brazil.

OG seem to see a need to keep the media informed despite the extraordinary measures that were taken within Leics Police with confidentiality agreements to officers active in the investigation. No whistle-blowing there then!

This whole thing leaks like a seive as and when it suits OG.

It's almost a Hollywood production. CrimeWatch was an absolute farce. Andy Redwood in a helicopter was an absolute farce. Now we have Andy Redwood passing on the baton to the new media friendly slant - get a woman in.

I despair.

by Montclair 13.12.14 10:23

sami wrote:
Khaleesi wrote:

So you think that the cops should tell the media only the truth about the investigation, helping the suspects to prepare their defence (or escape)? Serrrriously?

If Police are going to speak to the media, they should deal in facts. Their investigations are not a reality tv programme. They have no place declaring people innocent or guilty on tv, until such time as somebody is arrested, charged and found guilty by a court of law.

Redwood became involved in a soap opera, the advertising of his "revelation moment" on a regular basis the week before the airing of Crimewatch was akin to advertising the Eastenders Christmas Day who dunnit episode.

His self proclaimed revelation moment was then put forward on live tv, alongside a "reconstruction" which resembled a low budget soap, starring actors whose previous roles included blockbusters such as Tight Rider

The "revelation moment" was indeed jaw dropping, only because it is so improbable it is fighting with the abduction theory for the number one spot of impossible things that occurred in PDL on that night.

So, you think all of that was necessary simply to make the real criminals feel secure, that they are safe and free from suspicion, all the while Redwood is plotting a cunning plan to swoop and arrest them ?

Serrrriously ?

You really don't understand, do you?

Serrrriously ?

by espeland 13.12.14 10:27

TB wrote wrote:
give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case

If Redwood did lie his target audience was two people, arguably nine - not 6.7 million. If everyone else is inconvenienced by the lie, so what? Peoples' utterances about a whitewash are also premature - the time to complain (very loudly, IMO) is when such a result is announced, not before.

by sami 13.12.14 10:30

Montclair wrote:
You really don't understand, do you?

Serrrriously ?

Me ?

by ShuBob 13.12.14 10:36

espeland wrote:
TB wrote wrote:
give me one proven instance of where the police have deliberately lied during an investigation, in order to try and solve a case

If Redwood did lie his target audience was two people, arguably nine - not 6.7 million. If everyone else is inconvenienced by the lie, so what? Peoples' utterances about a whitewash are also premature - the time to complain (very loudly, IMO) is when such a result is announced, not before.

Hear, hear!

Also, I find it grossly distasteful the manner in which DCI Wall has been spoken of by some. Yet they're up in arms when so-called 'pros' use derogatory words against forum members. Give the woman a chance if you are a true justice-seeker.