Blacksmith - So Unfair!

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 29.07.16 10:05

Blacksmith

Thursday, 28 July 2016

So Unfair!

It’s not just that Scotland Yard are, shall we say, sparing with comments that would help the McCanns counter the recent media poison. With one exception the pair have also been extremely unlucky in regard to the limited number of official Yard statements indicating, intentionally or otherwise, the direction of their investigation.

There has been a colossal amount of media coverage of Yard activity and intentions, as anyone can see by consulting the Yard sections of Nigel’s McCann Files. On-the-record comments by the Yard make up about 5% of that acreage, with the other 95% consisting of unattributed or unsourced claims from journalists and PR operators, here and in Portugal, all pretending that their information has come from the Yard. We won't bother to go into the wheels-within-wheels nature of that spinning and the different people and motives involved since the spinners, including Mitchell, have lost and their interest is now only historical. Instead we simply say:

When you analyse these separate streams of "information" a striking difference emerges. Whatever the newspaper, tabloid or broadsheet, and whichever the broadcaster, the hundreds and hundreds of anonymously “sourced” claims about Grange targets from 2013-2015 never include material that could be seriously unhelpful to Kate and Gerry McCann. And, conversely, nearly all the information about the supposed “real targets” of Grange, the burglars, drug addicts, petty thieves and stinky masturbators on little girls’ beds is found in that 95% tranche of misinformation, not in on-the-record statements.

And the 5%?

Now this is where the couple have been really unlucky.Despite the Yard claims that they are not giving a “running commentary” on the case, they have, in fact, given public and on-the-record unspun statements at intervals which have clearly indicated much of their thinking, particularly its direction. The comments made in the course of appeals to the public for more information are of particular importance since they reveal, unwillingly or otherwise, just what the Yard were working on. And what they have been working on is inextricably entangled with the evidence of the Tapas Nine.

A Case Turned Upside Down On Its Head

Between 2013 and the end of last year when, as the Yard itself has confirmed, most of its work was completed, we find them publicly announcing:

Jane Tanner’s evidence is not supporting evidence of any kind for the abduction: the figure she saw was a holidaymaker with his child and as such her evidence has no value to the investigation except to confirm that there were indeed people on the streets at that time.
The “window of opportunity” for stranger abduction from 9PM to 9.30PM is no longer realistic and has to be extended to 10PM.
In October 2013 Grange released the famous Efits of an unidentified person carrying a child, generally known as the subject of the Smith sighting. Redwood said: "Whilst this man may or may not be the key to unlocking this investigation, tracing and speaking to him is of vital importance to us".
In March 2014 Grange announced without fanfare but on the record that, despite their original statements and expectations that they were looking for a live, saveable, child, they were now considering the possibility that Madeleine McCann was dead before she left the apartment.
In April 2016 the head of Scotland Yard said "There is a line of inquiry that remains to be concluded and it's expected that in the coming months that will happen."

A Unified Whole

These statements, widely separated in time, add up to a unified whole for they are all linked and a direction, indeed an arrow, of investigation can clearly be identified. It may well not be the only line of investigation since the review stage was completed - although we see no serious evidence of any other line, only gestures and spin - but it has an inner consistency and unity of purpose, a seriousness, that is missing in the well known and widely mocked supposed “other lines of inquiry”.

Starting from the foundation point that “the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest in this investigation”, a claim which they have not withdrawn, Grange found itself appraising the most famous supporting evidence for the abduction (1 above) and discovering that it had never existed.

But that meant that a huge tranche of evidence, chiefly provided by people who had put together their movements for the police on the agreed assumption that JT’s witness was the abductor – as the typed timeline showed - was now either worthless or in need of careful scrutiny. Looked at from the new viewpoint of Redwood's "revelation" their words seemed more designed to encourage a belief in the reality of the non-existent abductor than a genuine attempt to describe the situation objectively, as did the curious way in which their movements and observations, even in one notorious example, their urinations, meshed in to provide exactly the time and space required for his presence. How could that be explained when he was actually a parent with a child, not an abductor? There was clearly now no evidence that any abduction by anyone had taken place during that (2 above) period.

Which, in turn, led immediately to the extension of the possible abduction period to 10PM. Redwood was right to be elated: a logjam that had lasted six years was now cleared, offering new investigative opportunities.

And bingo! The supposed anomaly of a stranger madly schlepping a child through the streets for 45 minutes after being seen by Jane Tanner (3 above) vanished. It now all made sense and the sighting fitted perfectly into a different thesis and the later window of opportunity. Curiously, perhaps, Smithman's description doesn't appear to match any of the three "bungling burglars".

What subsequently prompted the squad to start considering the previously off-limits possibility that the child might have left the apartment dead (4 above) we do not, of course, know. Nor will we for a long time, since the implications are so potentially explosive: all we can be sure of is that, while it is obviously not impossible that a stranger could have abducted the child between 9.30 and 10PM, the chances of a stranger killing a child in that apartment, at that time and leaving absolutely no trace or disturbance, are so small we can call them zero.

Strangling Yourself The Hogan-Howe Way

Finally, we have the Hogan-Howe announcement (5 above) that only one line of inquiry is now being pursued before the investigation finishes. Now, think about it. If the line of investigation we have described using the Yard's own words above is not the sole remainder then it can only mean that:

The most important suspect in the history of the case, the culminating figure in the above line of inquiry and a person described by Grange as “maybe the person who unlocks the case” has not been identified or excluded and is not, repeat not, being sought or otherwise investigated any longer.

He can't be, can he? Otherwise that would be more than one line being investigated.

Now if you’re a cesspit nutter or a brilliant criminal profiler, that’s cool, that’s the whitewash. If you're in the Locked Ward you can go for the burglars and the sex freaks as the people Grange, rather than journalists and spinners, have been carefully building a case against. For the rest of us we suggest that it's perfectly clear what that last line of investigation is: the identity of Smithman and all that goes along with it.

by sallypelt 29.07.16 11:23

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Blacksmith

Thursday, 28 July 2016

So Unfair!

It’s not just that Scotland Yard are, shall we say, sparing with comments that would help the McCanns counter the recent media poison. With one exception the pair have also been extremely unlucky in regard to the limited number of official Yard statements indicating, intentionally or otherwise, the direction of their investigation.
There has been a colossal amount of media coverage of Yard activity and intentions, as anyone can see by consulting the Yard sections of Nigel’s McCann Files. On-the-record comments by the Yard make up about 5% of that acreage, with the other 95% consisting of unattributed or unsourced claims from journalists and PR operators, here and in Portugal, all pretending that their information has come from the Yard. We won't bother to go into the wheels-within-wheels nature of that spinning and the different people and motives involved since the spinners, including Mitchell, have lost and their interest is now only historical. Instead we simply say:
When you analyse these separate streams of "information" a striking difference emerges. Whatever the newspaper, tabloid or broadsheet, and whichever the broadcaster, the hundreds and hundreds of anonymously “sourced” claims about Grange targets from 2013-2015 never include material that could be seriously unhelpful to Kate and Gerry McCann. And, conversely, nearly all the information about the supposed “real targets” of Grange, the burglars, drug addicts, petty thieves and stinky masturbators on little girls’ beds is found in that 95% tranche of misinformation, not in on-the-record statements.
And the 5%?

Now this is where the couple have been really unlucky.Despite the Yard claims that they are not giving a “running commentary” on the case, they have, in fact, given public and on-the-record unspun statements at intervals which have clearly indicated much of their thinking, particularly its direction. The comments made in the course of appeals to the public for more information are of particular importance since they reveal, unwillingly or otherwise, just what the Yard were working on. And what they have been working on is inextricably entangled with the evidence of the Tapas Nine.
A Case Turned Upside Down On Its Head
Between 2013 and the end of last year when, as the Yard itself has confirmed, most of its work was completed, we find them publicly announcing:

Jane Tanner’s evidence is not supporting evidence of any kind for the abduction: the figure she saw was a holidaymaker with his child and as such her evidence has no value to the investigation except to confirm that there were indeed people on the streets at that time.
The “window of opportunity” for stranger abduction from 9PM to 9.30PM is no longer realistic and has to be extended to 10PM.
In October 2013 Grange released the famous Efits of an unidentified person carrying a child, generally known as the subject of the Smith sighting. Redwood said: "Whilst this man may or may not be the key to unlocking this investigation, tracing and speaking to him is of vital importance to us".
In March 2014 Grange announced without fanfare but on the record that, despite their original statements and expectations that they were looking for a live, saveable, child, they were now considering the possibility that Madeleine McCann was dead before she left the apartment.
In April 2016 the head of Scotland Yard said "There is a line of inquiry that remains to be concluded and it's expected that in the coming months that will happen."

A Unified Whole
These statements, widely separated in time, add up to a unified whole for they are all linked and a direction, indeed an arrow,  of investigation can clearly be identified. It may well not be the only line of investigation since the review stage was completed - although we see no serious evidence of any other line, only gestures and spin - but it has an inner consistency and unity of purpose, a seriousness, that is missing in the well known and widely mocked supposed “other lines of inquiry”.
Starting from the foundation point that “the McCanns are not suspects or persons of interest in this investigation”, a claim which they have not withdrawn, Grange found itself appraising the most famous supporting evidence for the abduction (1 above) and discovering that it had never existed.
But that meant that a huge tranche of evidence, chiefly provided by people who had put together their movements for the police on the agreed assumption that JT’s witness was the abductor – as the typed timeline showed - was now either worthless or in need of careful scrutiny. Looked at from the new viewpoint of Redwood's "revelation" their words seemed more designed to encourage a belief in the reality of the non-existent abductor than a genuine attempt to describe the situation objectively, as did the curious way in which their movements and observations, even in one notorious example, their urinations, meshed in to provide exactly the time and space required for his presence. How could that be explained when he was actually a parent with a child, not an abductor? There was clearly now no evidence that any abduction by anyone had taken place during that (2 above) period.
Which, in turn, led immediately to the extension of the possible abduction period to 10PM. Redwood was right to be elated: a logjam that had lasted six years was now cleared, offering new investigative opportunities.
And bingo! The supposed anomaly of a stranger madly schlepping a child through the streets for 45 minutes after being seen by Jane Tanner (3 above) vanished. It now all made sense and the sighting fitted perfectly into a different thesis and the later window of opportunity. Curiously, perhaps, Smithman's description doesn't appear to match any of the three "bungling burglars".
What subsequently prompted the squad to start considering the previously off-limits possibility that the child might have left the apartment dead (4 above) we do not, of course, know. Nor will we for a long time, since the implications are so potentially explosive: all we can be sure of is that, while it is obviously not impossible that a stranger could have abducted the child between 9.30 and 10PM, the   chances of a stranger killing a child in that apartment, at that time and leaving absolutely no trace or disturbance, are so small we can call them zero.
Strangling Yourself The Hogan-Howe Way

Finally, we have the Hogan-Howe announcement (5 above) that only one line of inquiry is now being pursued before the investigation finishes. Now, think about it. If the line of investigation we have described using the Yard's own words above is not the sole remainder then it can only mean that:
The most important suspect in the history of the case, the culminating figure in the above line of inquiry and a person described by Grange as  “maybe the person who unlocks the case” has not been identified or excluded and is not, repeat not, being sought or otherwise investigated any longer.
He can't be, can he? Otherwise that would be more than one line being investigated.
Now if you’re a cesspit nutter or a brilliant criminal profiler, that’s cool, that’s the whitewash. If you're in the Locked Ward you can go for the burglars and the sex freaks as the people Grange, rather than journalists and spinners, have been carefully building a case against. For the rest of us we suggest that it's perfectly clear what that last line of investigation is: the identity of Smithman and all that goes along with it.

Has this been posted here for the "cesspit nutters" to read, or am I too sensitive and putting two and two together, and making five?

by Richard IV 29.07.16 11:41

"For the rest of us we suggest that it's perfectly clear what that last line of investigation is: the identity of Smithman and all that goes along with it. "

clapping

by **Tony Bennett** 29.07.16 12:00

Richard IV wrote:"For the rest of us we suggest that it's perfectly clear what that last line of investigation is: the identity of Smithman and all that goes along with it. "

Was that a 'clap', @ Richard IV? If so, I feel it is entirely inappropriate.

Blacksmith's words again:

"Now if you’re a cesspit nutter or a brilliant criminal profiler, that’s cool, that’s the whitewash. If you're in the Locked Ward you can go for the burglars and the sex freaks as the people Grange, rather than journalists and spinners, have been carefully building a case against. For the rest of us we suggest that it's perfectly clear what that last line of investigation is: the identity of Smithman and all that goes along with it".

Let's first recall that in his seminal work on the case, his most brilliant summary and conclusion, his 'Cracked Mirror artlcle, he expressly says that there is evidence that Madeleine may have been abducted.

He also does not rate the evidence of the cadaver dogs as relevant - he never talks about it.

He never deigns to analyse the details of the case.

Let's recall also his incessant and vitriolic attacks over many years on CMOMM and many of its contributors.

Let's also note his recent one woman-one man mutual admiration society with Rosalinda Hutton, who seriously undermined our work by boasting in a two-page spread in Britain's best-read mainstream newspaper, the Sun, that she was one of the 'anti-McCann trolls' who 'got a buzz' out of 'squishing' other people on the internet.

I honestly would have thought by now that with all the doubts about the Smithman sighting aired on CMOMM, alongside the very obvious fact that Martin Smith has been working with both the McCann Team since December 2007 and with Operation Grange since at least a date during 2012, that very few people now give any credence whatsoever to Martin Smith's claims about his alleged sighting.

Nor to anything uttered by DCI Andy Redwood.

Clearly I still have a lot of work to do

by willowthewisp 29.07.16 14:18

Having read Blacksmith's posting article,He still is not clear as to what has happened to Madeleine McCann and her disappearance from the holiday apartment 5a Ocean Club,reported to GNR 3 May 2007?
In his article,references are made to"Revelation" moment and the now moved time frame by DCI Andy Redwood to between 21.00-22.00 hrs on the above date,but there is no mention of DCI Andy Redwood having met the "Creche Dad" as elimination as the suspect?
Also note there is no mention of the "Dogs"reactions to what they had indicated to and the "Destroyed DNA" by a Police unit, aren't they supposed to protect Evidence?
Maybe the point of the Blacksmith article, is that he knows the public no longer are able to "Trust or Believe"what the Official Establishment figures spout as to what has happened in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the failure to find the Criminal's is further proof, that the Remit is Flawed?
I didn't know that you were in a locked ward Mr Antony Bennett or is that thoughtful thinking from Blacksmith?

by Richard IV 29.07.16 14:20

@ Tony - I think the whole world knows what you think, so you do not have any more work to do.

I do not always agree with Blacksmith and I haven`t liked his language in the past, but I merely agreed with the last sentence of that piece that there is only one line of inquiry left and that`s the identity of Smithman.

Please don`t go to the trouble of repeating everything on my account. You do not have to try and change peoples` minds. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don`t - I`m sure that`s true of most posters.

I don`t take any notice of the gang mentality of "if you don`t agree with me/us you`re not in our gang". It causes interforum wars to commence which is just childish. Blacksmith is just as guilty as some people here I know, but just look at the past vitriol written here about people that happen to disagree with you. It has simmered down a bit recently I must say.

Darned silly when everyone`s supposed to be working to the same end.

by JRP 29.07.16 14:49

So is "Tanner Man" "Creche Dad" "Redwood Man" "Smith Man" carrying a dead body around or were the dogs wrong?

by Guest 29.07.16 15:23

I'm at a loss to understand why anyone aware of the blacksmithbureau's histrionics, thinks it appropriate to repeat the random meanderings on this forum. If anyone has an interest in anything the blog has to say, it's easy enough to check it out from time to time - personally I don't think it belongs here.

Andy Redwood's revelation that so prominently featured two different e-fits of person/s of interest, affectionately known as 'Smithman', is but a figment of a desperate imagination and designed to provide that innocent explanation for anything Jane tanner may or may not have said. This has been played out by the knowledge that there has been no advancement in that direction - in short, the Smithy (how appropriate for the blacksmith) has never been identified or come forward. For sure it would be common knowledge if the man had been identified, despite Operation Grange's claimed covert operations.

by willowthewisp 29.07.16 15:35

Verdi wrote:I'm at a loss to understand why anyone aware of the blacksmithbureau's histrionics, thinks it appropriate to repeat the random meanderings on this forum. If anyone has an interest in anything the blog has to say, it's easy enough to check it out from time to time - personally I don't think it belongs here.

Andy Redwood's revelation that so prominently featured two different e-fits of person/s of interest, affectionately known as 'Smithman', is but a figment of a desperate imagination and designed to provide that innocent explanation for anything Jane tanner may or may not have said. This has been played out by the knowledge that there has been no advancement in that direction - in short, the Smithy (how appropriate for the blacksmith) has never been identified or come forward. For sure it would be common knowledge if the man had been identified, despite Operation Grange's claimed covert operations.

Hi Verdi,I Thought DCI Andy Redwood had stated he had met "Creche Dad"and had seen the childs PJ's and the clothing he had worn on that fateful night 3 May 2007?

by Guest 29.07.16 15:40

JRP wrote:So is "Tanner Man" "Creche Dad" "Redwood Man" "Smith Man" carrying a dead body around or were the dogs wrong?

The notion of anyone carrying a dead body around the streets of PdL at around 10:00 pm is nothing short of risible - even in a state of panic, who would be that stupid? If disposal of a body was required without immediate availablilty of transport, there must be any number of ways to re-locate a body even if only pending a plan for later implementation.

The initial alert was designed to divert attention away from apartment 5a i.e. abductor. Whose to say a body wasn't temporarily moved to another apartment? Apparently Jane Tanner (that name again) was standing guard around her apartment and the Payne duo where actively organising things in and around apartment 5a. The Portuguese tracker dogs depolyed in the early days wouldn't have signified because a) Madeleine had been in and around the Tapas groups accommodation so her scent would be present and b) the dog handlers were given some article said to belong to/been used by Madeleine. Big question mark!

I'm digressing again.

by Guest 29.07.16 15:50

I never heard of this blog before now, but based on that odyssey of sophistry I don't think I'll be looking to read it again anytime soon.

ETA:

verdi wrote:The Portuguese tracker dogs depolyed in the early days wouldn't have signified because a) Madeleine had been in and around the Tapas groups accommodation so her scent would be present and b) the dog handlers were given some article said to belong to/been used by Madeleine. Big question mark!

Not to mention same dogs combed the beachfront and surrounding area without so much as a whimper. This considering not only the Smith 'sighting', but also the fact she had 'been sailing' just a few hours prior. Beggars belief, they threw shade on dogs from the start.

by Guest 29.07.16 15:55

willowthewisp wrote:
Verdi wrote:I'm at a loss to understand why anyone aware of the blacksmithbureau's histrionics, thinks it appropriate to repeat the random meanderings on this forum. If anyone has an interest in anything the blog has to say, it's easy enough to check it out from time to time - personally I don't think it belongs here.

Andy Redwood's revelation that so prominently featured two different e-fits of person/s of interest, affectionately known as 'Smithman', is but a figment of a desperate imagination and designed to provide that innocent explanation for anything Jane tanner may or may not have said. This has been played out by the knowledge that there has been no advancement in that direction - in short, the Smithy (how appropriate for the blacksmith) has never been identified or come forward. For sure it would be common knowledge if the man had been identified, despite Operation Grange's claimed covert operations.
Hi Verdi,I Thought DCI Andy Redwood had stated he had met "Creche Dad"and had seen the childs PJ's and the clothing he had worn on that fateful night 3 May 2007?

"One particular family that we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting - and exciting - in fact I would say it was a revelation moment when having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed they could be the Tanner sighting..."

Andy Redwood - Crimewatch 2013 Madeleine McCann Special

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

Make of that what you will. Tannerman conveniently morphed into Smithman?

Blacksmith - So Unfair! Crimewatchtrailerredwood

Blacksmith - So Unfair! Crimewatchtrailerredwood

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood having a 'revelation moment'

by Guest 29.07.16 16:02

April28th wrote:I never heard of this blog before now, but based on that odyssey of sophistry I don't think I'll be looking to read it again anytime soon.

ETA:
verdi wrote:The Portuguese tracker dogs depolyed in the early days wouldn't have signified because a) Madeleine had been in and around the Tapas groups accommodation so her scent would be present and b) the dog handlers were given some article said to belong to/been used by Madeleine. Big question mark!

Not to mention same dogs combed the beachfront and surrounding area without so much as a whimper. This considering not only the Smith 'sighting', but also the fact she had 'been sailing' just a few hours prior. Beggars belief, they threw shade on dogs from the start.

Tracker dogs across the globe have an exemplary reputation for nigh on 100% success rate for sniffing out all sorts of whiffs - but of course, as with Eddie and Keela, their reputation goes down the pan when it comes to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Apparently when scientifically tested, so say Gerry McCann!

Funny that innit?

by JRP 29.07.16 16:29

I read that cadaverine, the pungent smell of death, takes 2 hours to appear. So therefore Andy Redwood's time expansion to a one hour window is still at least one hour short.

Rather than a window of 9-10pm it needs to be 8pm.

That doesn't even factor in any time for thinking ... Oh s*** what do I do with this body?

Redwood's problem is, he has all these sightings but no time for cadaverine to appear.

Those pesky dogs make all the sightings complete bulls**t. So Redwood doesn't mention the dogs, and neither does Blacksmith.

Dogs don't lie, but people do. I'm with the dogs.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.07.16 16:36

willowthewisp wrote:
Hi Verdi, I thought DCI Andy Redwood had stated he had met "Creche Dad" and had seen the child's pyjamas and the clothing he had worn on that fateful night 3 May 2007?

Not quite - in fact quite a bit different.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the Crimewatch programme, with a bit before and after, just to put 'Creche Dad' in context:

=======

AMROLIWALA

One of the most pivotal events on the timeline was Jane Tanner’s sighting of a man carrying a child. He was walking in this spot…

[ PICTURES OF ROAD OUTSIDE G5A ]

…just metres from where Madeleine had been sleeping.

DRAMATIC MUSIC

This man was widely thought to have been Madeleine’s abductor, but the team was taking nothing for granted.

REDWOOD

One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception – and 8 families had left 11 children in there – and one particular family we spoke to us gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact, I would say it was – it was a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what they were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.

AMROLIWALA

The British father had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche. He had been walking near the McCanns’ apartment.

PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN

This is the actual photograph taken by Metropolitan Police Officers of the man dressed in the kind of clothes he wore on holiday. This image was compared to the artist’s impression [based on Jane Tanner’s statement].

CRECHEMAN AND TANNERMAN MERGED SO THAT THEY APPEARED TO BE VERY SIMILAR

It is uncannily similar – and we know from the pyjamas that their child was wearing that it is, again, uncannily striking, the similarity.

AMROLIWALA

So, what you’re saying is that the timeline that everyone was working on for four years in this case…was wrong?

REDWOOD

We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor. But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock…

TICKING CLOCK

…to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus.

AMROLIWALA

This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years.

Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery.

==========

REPLY: I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of CMOMM members believe that Redwood lied about Crecheman. As for 'Smithman' being the 'key to the entire mystery', I can see quite a few other contenders for that title: Eddie, Keela, Martin Grime, the Last Photo, and the statement of Nuno Lourenco. I wonder if any other police force has placed an invisible man at its focus, never mind the 'centre of our focus'?

by **Tony Bennett** 29.07.16 16:51

JRP wrote:I read that cadaverine, the pungent smell of death, takes 2 hours to appear. So therefore Andy Redwood's time expansion to a one hour window is still at least one hour short.

Rather than a window of 9-10pm it needs to be 8pm.

REPLY: Yes, I think the way it is usually put is that under normal conditions, it takes about two hours for sufficient cadaver odour ('human cadaverine') to leave sufficient scent for dogs to be able to detect it months after a body has been removed from the place.

That doesn't even factor in any time for thinking ... Oh s*** what do I do with this body?

Redwood's problem is, he has all these sightings but no time for cadaverine to appear.

REPLY: This is also a problem for all those - Dr Goncalo Amaral included - who maintain that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. Elsewhere on the forum I've published a long list of all that the McCanns and their friends would have had to do between Madeleine's death after 6pm and sitting down calmly for dinner at 8.30pm. It is, basically, utterly impossible for this to have happened. I think Amaral believes that the twins were both present when Madeleine had what he says was an unfortunate fatal accident in the apartment between 6pm and 8.30pm. I consider this to be an extremely improbable scenario.

Those pesky dogs make all the sightings complete bulls**t. So Redwood doesn't mention the dogs, and neither does Blacksmith.

REPLY:

Dogs don't lie, but people do. I'm with the dogs.

by MayMuse 29.07.16 17:34

The most obvious last line of enquiry has been Madeleine's parents, in my opinion!
I'm with the "dogs" too.

by kaz 29.07.16 18:13

I don't know nearly as much about this case as do the regular posters but what I do know is that OG gave two completely different images for Smithman. Why would that be?

by whodunit 29.07.16 18:34

The identity of Smithman is irrelevant. He is a ghost. He doesn't exist, he never existed.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.07.16 19:24

kaz wrote:I don't know nearly as much about this case as do the regular posters but what I do know is that OG gave two completely different images for Smithman. Why would that be?

I am at times tempted to suggest that, behind our backs so to speak, they are all having one huge joke at our expense.

They must be laughing their heads off at the utterly unbelievable things they've thrown at the general public over the past nine years - and more or less completely got away with.

So there's this bloke in Praia da Luz.

He and eight more members of his family all see a bloke at 10pm on a cold dark night carrying a young blonde girl. clad only in pyjamas, looking dead or half dead, towards the beach.

The next day, and for the next 13 days, despite an international storm with media headlines in Britain, Ireland and elsewhere about a girl who went missing at about the same time of their sighting, they do...precisely nothing.

Then, 13 days later, after someone they know is arrested for abducting the girl, they suddenly remember it. According to the narrative, the bloke's son 'phones him and says: "Dad, am I dreaming or something but did we see a bloke carrying a girl that night...?" And then, in another brilliant turn of phrase, the Irish bloke said: "Then we all recollected the same recollection".

Four months later, and again after an 11-day delay, the bloke watches a news items and says "That's the bloke we saw, it's the way he was carrying his child on his shoulder. It was Gerry McCann! Well, at least I'm about 60 to 80% sure it was".

Three months later, he talks to the McCann Team and he has been working with the McCann Team ever since.

In the spring of 2008, another bloke comes to see this bloke. This new bloke is Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, one of the very top jobs in Britain's secret service. He was however dismissed from MI5 for thieving perfume from Manchester Airport.

He asks the bloke from Ireland and maybe other members of his family to help draw him draw up an efit. Or, well, maybe to efits, maybe. One for luck, eh?

The bloke says to Exton: "Look, it was a year ago! It was dark. The street had weak lighting. I only saw him for a second or two. His head was down, the child was covering his face a bit, I never saw him properly. How do you expect me to remember what he looked like? I even told the Portuguese Police on 26 May last year that I'd never be able to recognise him again if I saw him. So did my son and daughter!"

Henri Exton said: "Well have a go anyway" - and we end up with - as you say, two detailed but quite different-looking efit men.

And to think that many have swallowed this entire fable - hook, line and sinker!

by Guest 29.07.16 20:13

Lest we forget..

Blacksmith - So Unfair! Captur10

Crecheman Tannerman

Apart from anything else, you have to ask yourself why it took DCI Andy Redwood's revelation moment six years to materialize and coincidentally revealed at the same time as the e-fits of a person/s of interest to the investigation, prepared in consultation with the Smith family - allegedly! This is Andy Redwood's word alone for the exciting revelation moment, there has never been any confirmation nor proof that this person exists.

How extraordinary this man from out of the blue should be so similar to Jane Tanner's description of a man carrying a semi-clad uncovered child through the streets of PdL whilst the man (either one, take your choice) is dressed for a cold night - not like a tourist! Humbug!

by JRP 29.07.16 20:15

kaz wrote:I don't know nearly as much about this case as do the regular posters but what I do know is that OG gave two completely different images for Smithman. Why would that be?

He looks exactly like this, or possibly more like this.
Anyway, if you recognize him please give us a call.
It all adds to the confusion.

by Guest 29.07.16 20:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
I am at times tempted to suggest that, behind our backs so to speak, they are all having one huge joke at our expense.

They must be laughing their heads off at the utterly unbelievable things they've thrown at the general public over the past nine years - and more or less completely got away with.

I've been of the same mind since 4th May 2007. It'll take more than a revelation moment to convince me otherwise.

by Guest 29.07.16 20:27

JRP wrote:
kaz wrote:I don't know nearly as much about this case as do the regular posters but what I do know is that OG gave two completely different images for Smithman. Why would that be?

He looks exactly like this, or possibly more like this.
Anyway, if you recognize him please give us a call.
It all adds to the confusion.

They should have stuck with 'eggman' - more chance of finding a tribute act..

Blacksmith - So Unfair! E-fit-5

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen - I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob

by **Tony Bennett** 29.07.16 20:32

Verdi wrote:Lest we forget...

OK, then, on the theme: 'Lest we forget', let's refresh our memories with the plain-speaking views of a former U.S. prosecutor - and now child abuse consultant, Wendy Murphy, who gave us this simple rallying cry for the whole forum:

'I'm not buying it!' >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf4wVANuNRY

by JRP 29.07.16 20:35

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:
kaz wrote:I don't know nearly as much about this case as do the regular posters but what I do know is that OG gave two completely different images for Smithman. Why would that be?

He looks exactly like this, or possibly more like this.
Anyway, if you recognize him please give us a call.
It all adds to the confusion.
They should have stuck with 'eggman' - more chance of finding a tribute act..

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen - I am the walrus, goo goo

I think you're right. They're 'avin' a larf.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.07.16 20:36

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:
kaz wrote:I don't know nearly as much about this case as do the regular posters but what I do know is that OG gave two completely different images for Smithman. Why would that be?

He looks exactly like this, or possibly more like this.
Anyway, if you recognize him please give us a call.
It all adds to the confusion.
They should have stuck with 'eggman' - more chance of finding a tribute act..

I am the eggman, they are the eggmen - I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob

Jane Tanner, 4 May 2007: "He didn't look like a tourist"

Nuno Lourenco (describing Wojcek Krokowski), 5 May: "He didn't look like a tourist"

Martin Smith, 16 and 26 May 2007: "He didn't look like a tourist"

DCI Andy Redwood, 14 October 2013: "He was a tourist. Ha Ha!"

by Guest 29.07.16 20:36

The template for Tannerman and crecheman..

Blacksmith - So Unfair! CCTV-footage-of-Wojciech-Krokowski

Acknowledgement - Tony Bennett's diligence.

by Guest 29.07.16 20:41

Tony Bennett wrote:

DCI Andy Redwood, 14 October 2013: "He was a tourist. Ha Ha!"

Wondered who'd spot that first!

by Guest 29.07.16 20:48

willowthewisp wrote:Having read Blacksmith's posting article,He still is not clear as to what has happened to Madeleine McCann and her disappearance from the holiday apartment 5a Ocean Club,reported to GNR 3 May 2007?

Passive immunity either that or over inflated ego! Come to think on it - maybe a combination of the two.