L-azzeri: McCann New Private Investigation 2016/3

by **Jill Havern** 05.01.16 9:31

McCann New Private Investigation 2016/3

From McCann Website
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry

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

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

These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

------------

Statement 2 - Paragraph 2

'Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact....'

Time now to deal with the 'NOT POSSIBLE'

Obvious question - WHY is it NOT POSSIBLE NOW, and WHY was it NOT POSSIBLE, BEFORE Crimewatch 2013, the Madeleine McCann Special, was aired, in UK and European countries, for Redwood, the Metropolitan Police to be certain?

And WHY did McCanns go along with this Crimewatch Special where the focus was REMOVED from the Jane Tanner sighting, if it was NOT POSSIBLE to be certain, that the person Tanner claims to have seen was this British dad?

MetropolitanPolice/Redwood (back then) have/had crechedad, the British dad who Redwood claimed was walking in the very spot, at the very time, dressed in the very way Jane Tanner described in her sighting, carrying a child, in the very same way as Jane Tanner described in her police witness statement.

AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, Redwood the Metropolitan Police HAD, and still have the person more crucial than the British dad to this fantastic tale - they have JANE TANNER THE STAR WITNESS!

Now one would have to assume, that as Redwood and the Metropolitan Police claimed they were ONLY ALMOST CERTAIN of the identity of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen, that Jane Tanner was UNABLE TO IDENTIFY this British dad as the person she saw.

It stands to reason that if this British dad came forward, and SUGGESTED to the Metropolitan Police, SIX YEARS AFTER MADELEINE VANISHED, that he MAY be the person Jane Tanner saw (was this guy living on the moon - SIX YEARS LATER, when in that six years in the UK press and on TV it was wall to wall McCann/Madeleine stories, practically daily) that at some point, the Metropolitan Police discussed this with Jane Tanner with a view to Tanner identifying said British dad?

And it goes without saying that Jane Tanner would have discussed this with the McCanns, their team, Clarence Mitchell, their lawyers, their team in Portugal. WITH HER OWN LAWYERS, and I'll bet Tanner and her partner O'Brien have their OWN lawyers!

As Redwood declared that he, the Metropolitan Police were only ALMOST CERTAIN, then we have to assume that Jane Tanner failed in identifying this British dad as the person she claimed to have seen on that night. Failed to confirm with absolute certainty that he was the man she told Portuguese Police she had seen.

You see, it was NOT for the British dad only to claim that he MIGHT have been the person Tanner claimed to have seen, it was for the WITNESS JANE TANNER to make a positive ID.

Tanner's police witness statement, we all know, was considered NOT credible by the Portuguese Police, and one can see exactly why that was.

But what is less credible than Tanner's sighting, is Redwood's CRECHEDAD!

It is not unsurprising then that this British dad, and Jane Tanner were NOT allowed to be part of the Crimewatch Production, 2013, Madeleine McCann Special.

How would that have played out?

Redwood introducing the man who MIGHT have been the guy, who Jane Tanner the witness DEEMED UNRELIABLE, claimed to have seen, on the night Madeleine McCann was reported as missing.

Then introducing Tanner, herself as the witness who found it NOT POSSIBLE to identify this guy as the person she claimed to have seen on that night?

Yip, Tanner was tucked away, safely out of the way, no chance of her appearing on Crimewatch and being interviewed by Kirsty Young, or answering any awkward questions, about her not being able to positively ID this British dad.

And the British dad? Well he was tucked away too, back in his box at Operation Grange HQ where he was invented! Filed under 'C' for crock of crap - no, not for Crechedad!

Andy Redwood, the Metropolitan Police and whomever else was party to this nonsense that was Crimewatch 2013, and based on an outrageous story he created about a British dad - for whatever was his agenda (and it certainly was not to find whomever REMOVED Madeleine McCann from that apartment) a story held together, only on an 'ALMOST' a 'MAY' and a - NOT POSSIBLE for the STAR WITNESS TO IDENTIFY the British dad as the person she saw on that night - fed the world the biggest load of who shot john quite possibly ever told!

And as I said previously by doing so, he left the McCanns their buddies their stories, their police witness statements in respect of their movements between 9.15 and 10.00 pm to go unchallenged, and leaves them free to continue to display on their website the images as above, and they can because REDWOOD SAID HE WAS ONLY ALMOST CERTAIN!

Redwood, the Metropolitan Police should have made ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN before he launched into his revelation moment in such a big way.

I guess he was caught up in the excitement of it, he did say it was EXCITING to have discovered Crechedad!

Funnily enough though, Kate and Gerry McCann have not shown the same interest, or excitement, about Redwood's Revelation Moment.

Did they NOT get to meet the man in person?

Think we all know the answer to that one, they didn't, and Tanner didn't either!

What will be INTERESTING AND EXCITING, A TRUE REVELATION MOMENT, is when the NEW PRIVATE DETECTIVES, get to meet CRECHEDAD.

They surely will be wanting to meet the man of the moment!

And they surely will be wanting to meet Jane Tanner!

What a nice cosy meeting that would be. Jane telling him what she saw, Crechedad telling Jane what HE saw! How lovely!

I think sometimes we forget that unlike Tannerman, CRECHMAN CAN TALK! (did a blog on this a while back) Crecheman MUST have seen and heard those other persons on the street - Tanner, McCann, Wilkins, and anyone else who was going about their business!

You see, Crecheman, UNLIKE Tannerman (the alleged abductor) was in NO HURRY, HAD NOTHING TO HIDE, DIDN'T MATTER IF ANYONE SAW HIM, he was but a British dad wrapped all warm and cosy, in his long pants, heavy outdoor shoes, and jacket, carrying his child in the most awkward position ever, his child dressed only in her pyjamas, on a very cold evening (odd that, as British parents, wrap their kids warmly, something to do with the shit British climate) - HE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE OR RUSH AWAY FROM.

Maybe Kate and Gerry McCann will interview him when they commence their New PRIVATE INVESTIGATION?

Maybe he'll get a seat on the sofa at Lorraine's place?

Wouldn't we ALL just love to hear from Crechedad? His story. A Crechedad and Tanner Special!

But alas, I fear, when the curtain comes down at Grange HQ, poor guy will be thrown out with the rest!

Anyone ever wondered if the Portuguese Police got to interview crechedad, they, after all are the lead investigators in the missing Madeleine case. They just gotta be interested in him, if not excited, by Redwood's revelation moment!

I guess that's a whole other story too!

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
4th January 2016

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

by willowthewisp 07.01.16 13:29

Perhaps DCI Andy Redwood had left the top off the"Tippex"during this revolutionary moment October 2013 Crime Watch costing over £X amount of million's to reinvent(Pervert) the Truth of what happened,eh Andy,Hamish and your special Non suspects of committing no Criminal activity?
Hamish Campbell has taken up a new position as an adviser to the Jamaican Police force dealing in their criminal procedures, a bit like Andy Pandy and Bill and Ben the flower Pot men, flop adop weed,lal lal lal?

by worriedmum 07.01.16 23:27

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't Jane Tanner identify Robert Murat as 'Crecheman' - to the POLICE?

by **Tony Bennett** 08.01.16 0:29

worriedmum wrote:Please correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't Jane Tanner identify Robert Murat as 'Crecheman' - to the POLICE?

YES - absolutely right @ worriedmum.

Here is the relevant extract from Goncalo Amaral's book:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

On May 12th, the suspect rents a car, in which he drives kilometres over rough tracks for basic essentials. He explains later: that day, his mother had needed his car for her information desk. We are assuming that he noticed he was being followed.

We then decide to search his residence and the vehicles he uses. During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued to them.

JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?

UNQUOTE

This last question of Goncalo Amaral is an excellent one. To which the answer is an emphatic: 'No it doesn't'.

I have patiently explained on the forum my reasons for suggesting that Jane Tanner's description of Tannerman is so similar to Nuno Lourenco's description of 'Sagres Man' i.e. Wojcheich Krokowksi that it is clear that they must be from the same source.

That is, that Jane Tanner on 4 May 2007 is giving the PJ a description of Krokowski, just as Nuno Lourenco did hours later on the morning of 5 May, no sooner had Krokowski's plane taken off from Faro for Berlin.

Richard D Hall held the same view in his second Madeleine film, 'PHANTOMS':

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

I appreciate that a lot of people do not agree with me that Tanner was describing Krokowlsi, probably as part of a pre-arranged plan.

But what is beyond dispute is that her description of Tannerman did not match Robert Murat.

As Goncalo Amaral evidently realised.

In these twin issues of Jane Tanner's identification of Murat and of the coincidence of the descriptions of Tannerman and Sagres we surely have very large jigsaws of the complete jigsaw puzzle of what really happened to Madeleine McCann?

And a third large piece of the jigsaw would be to determine (a) who exactly briefed her before she 'identified' Robert Murat as the abductor and (b) what exactly they told her to do. At the moment, it's one of those many secrets in the case - like the secrets that both Father Pacheco and former Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley vowed they would take to their graves to them.

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

...and in superb article on the same topic by Paulo Reis on the gazetadigital site