Re: DCI Redwood on Daybreak: VIDEO Added

by **PeterMac** 28.04.12 10:54

Tony Bennett wrote:

I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there -
for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive -
and it is our belief, as experienced investigators -
on the evidence,
that,
um that you know,
that
that,
that is as a criminal act -
and that has been,
you know,
undertaken by,
by a stranger,
and so from that -
she’s…........
and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive...

If we break it up like that, we see his sub-conscious refusing to carry on until forced to do so by his conscious.

He is trapped. He cannot say what his professional experience tells him.
He cannot carry on, and eventually has to resort to changing the subject completely, at which point he become fluent and lucid again.

by Spaniel 28.04.12 11:11

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there -
for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive -
and it is our belief, as experienced investigators -
on the evidence,
that,
um that you know,
that
that,
that is as a criminal act -
and that has been,
you know,
undertaken by,
by a stranger,
and so from that -
she’s…........
and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive...

If we break it up like that, we see his sub-conscious refusing to carry on until forced to do so by his conscious.

He is trapped. He cannot say what his professional experience tells him.
He cannot carry on, and eventually has to resort to changing the subject completely, at which point he become fluent and lucid again.

PeterMac, could a lawyer have any influence over what a senior met officer states in public or not?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.04.12 11:30

Woofer wrote:I know Amaral has said SY is only investigating from the perspective of `alive/abducted`, and although I respect GA, I find it hard to believe that SY would do this. In fact AR has said they are following both possibilities...[SNIPPED]

The way I read it, and the way everyone else was meant to take it, I'm sure, was:

"We have the evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger. We don't yet know if that abduction resulted in Madeleine being killed".

by Guest 28.04.12 11:33

I have yet another question.

From the outset, this was supposed to be a review, not an investigation. A review looks at what is already there. That's what we have been told on numerous occasions, that SY have no remit to investigate, they were just turning over paper, and looking through the files, to see if anything had been missed.

So my question is this, if they are just reviewing, why have they had an age-progression photo made, and why are they asking people to ring them if they were in PDL at that time. They have already said they have a number of leads have already come in. So, this is not a review is it?

by Spaniel 28.04.12 11:41

How can a timeline, drawn up by friends be evidence for a stranger abduction? Only one person has an independent witness to leaving the tapas bar at all, and that was Gerry McCann.

by puzzled 28.04.12 11:59

Spaniel wrote: could a lawyer have any influence over what a senior met officer states in public or not?

Maybe not a lawyer, but concerns about the media could well influence it. After all, negative media coverage was one of the things that made the original Portuguese investigation so difficult wasn't it? It seems to me that Scotland Yard are caught between a rock and a hard place here. If they openly come out and say that she's most likely dead, what will the headlines be in all the papers next day? Apart from the fact that it could send the McCanns into pre-emptive spin mode. It seems then, that the best course of action might be to keep the media and the McCanns sweet, while doing all the real work behind the scenes.

by jd 28.04.12 12:03

Spaniel wrote:How can a timeline, drawn up by friends be evidence for a stranger abduction? Only one person has an independent witness to leaving the tapas bar at all, and that was Gerry McCann.

You mean this timeline.....

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

by justme3 28.04.12 12:04

I would like to ask SY, if the T9 hadn't been professional people, would the parents of the child be in jail right now? I think we ALL know the answer!

by justme3 28.04.12 12:10

"THE parents of missing Madeleine McCann suffered a huge blow last night when slack Portuguese cops REFUSED to reopen the case"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, I BET!

You can't make this C**p up, can you?

by justme3 28.04.12 12:14

justme3 wrote:"THE parents of missing Madeleine McCann suffered a huge blow last night when slack Portuguese cops REFUSED to reopen the case"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, I BET!

"Kate and Gerry McCann had been given fresh hope by a Met review of the investigation.

Yesterday a source close to them said: “They were hoping the Portuguese would see sense and agree. But it seems not"

Go back and do a reconstruction, and explain why there were so many ~~lies~~ opps "inconsistencies" in your statements. I'll start you off..........locked doors, unlocked doors, jemmied windows, Jane Tanner see Gerry and Jeremy Wilkins, but them not seeing her. Shall I go on?

You can't make this C**p up, can you?

by Woofer 28.04.12 12:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:I know Amaral has said SY is only investigating from the perspective of `alive/abducted`, and although I respect GA, I find it hard to believe that SY would do this. In fact AR has said they are following both possibilities...[SNIPPED]
The way I read it, and the way everyone else was meant to take it, I'm sure, was:

"We have the evidence that Madeleine was taken by a stranger. We don't yet know if that abduction resulted in Madeleine being killed".

Thanks Tony - ok I concede it looks outwardly biased and, of course, totally unprofessional. AR is broadcasting that they are believing the prime suspects` stories.

So, one can only conclude that SY are either :-

1. Total twits, or

2. Pretending to be total twits.

by **PeterMac** 28.04.12 12:16

Spaniel wrote:PeterMac, could a lawyer have any influence over what a senior met officer states in public or not?

When you are dealing with libel, and at this early stage in a review / enquiry, which even if it came to the conclusion all sentient people think is most likely, would not be heard in an English Court, yes.
But I doubt if they would need to directly.
Redwood knows the rules about not prejudicing a future court hearing by blabbing. And there is absolutely no doubt that he will have at his fingertips the details of all the libel suits past and present.
And he will despise them as much as an police officer does.

by Pershing36 28.04.12 12:17

SY are going to be a laughing stock at the end of this. £3 million, 37 officers and probably years to go over what has already been done.

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 12:17

justme3 wrote:"THE parents of missing Madeleine McCann suffered a huge blow last night when slack Portuguese cops REFUSED to reopen the case"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, I BET!

You can't make this C**p up, can you?

Why can't they get their facts correct. Or is it they do know it is not up to the PJ but the AG to order the reopening but their spin suits them better.

by Spaniel 28.04.12 12:19

puzzled wrote:
Spaniel wrote: could a lawyer have any influence over what a senior met officer states in public or not?

Maybe not a lawyer, but concerns about the media could well influence it. After all, negative media coverage was one of the things that made the original Portuguese investigation so difficult wasn't it? It seems to me that Scotland Yard are caught between a rock and a hard place here. If they openly come out and say that she's most likely dead, what will the headlines be in all the papers next day? Apart from the fact that it could send the McCanns into pre-emptive spin mode. It seems then, that the best course of action might be to keep the media and the McCanns sweet, while doing all the real work behind the scenes.

Thanks puzzled, what you say makes sense.

by justme3 28.04.12 12:21

PeterMac wrote:
Spaniel wrote:PeterMac, could a lawyer have any influence over what a senior met officer states in public or not?
When you are dealing with libel, and at this early stage in a review / enquiry, which even if it came to the conclusion all sentient people think is most likely, would not be heard in an English Court, yes.
But I doubt if they would need to directly.
Redwood knows the rules about not prejudicing a future court hearing by blabbing. And there is absolutely no doubt that he will have at his fingertips the details of all the libel suits past and present.
And he will despise them as much as an police officer does.

I totally agree Petermac. I'm letting emotion get in the way of realising how the law works. Of course they aren't going to come out and say that the McCanns are guilty, but there's been so many twists to this sorry affair, where they have made millions from funds, books, libel cases, that it makes one lose faith in the British justice system.

by Spaniel 28.04.12 12:24

PeterMac wrote:
Spaniel wrote:PeterMac, could a lawyer have any influence over what a senior met officer states in public or not?
When you are dealing with libel, and at this early stage in a review / enquiry, which even if it came to the conclusion all sentient people think is most likely, would not be heard in an English Court, yes.
But I doubt if they would need to directly.
Redwood knows the rules about not prejudicing a future court hearing by blabbing. And there is absolutely no doubt that he will have at his fingertips the details of all the libel suits past and present.
And he will despise them as much as an police officer does.

Thanks, I'll bow to your vast knowledge and trust AR will get a result.

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 12:24

Pershing36 wrote:SY are going to be a laughing stock at the end of this. £3 million, 37 officers and probably years to go over what has already been done.

25% of the review done cost £2 million, so 100% could end up costing £8 million. If they could solve the case it would be a different matter. I hope they do.

by Pershing36 28.04.12 12:47

Another thought just came across me.

If the original investigation was so 'botched' and the forensics so unreliable what is the point of looking at them again.

Surely any abductor would be able to discount any forensic evidence against them the same as Kate and Gerry did.

Maybe this is why they are heavily concentrating on the 'alive and well' theory as they know nothing else would stand up.

by russiandoll 28.04.12 13:58

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there -
for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive -
and it is our belief, as experienced investigators -
on the evidence,
that,
um that you know,
that
that,
that is as a criminal act -
and that has been,
you know,
undertaken by,
by a stranger,
and so from that -
she’s…........
and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive...

If we break it up like that, we see his sub-conscious refusing to carry on until forced to do so by his conscious.

He is trapped. He cannot say what his professional experience tells him.
He cannot carry on, and eventually has to resort to changing the subject completely, at which point he become fluent and lucid again.

exactly ! Apart from his professional experience, reason and logic won't allow it.
DCI Redwood has been handed the biggest of poison chalices. This is a review ordered by the Prime Minister and he is aware of all the controversy surrounding this case. He has a massive weight of responsibility on his shoulders trying to establish Maddie's fate. There is no way he has gone through the tapas statements and not noted the lies.
Foensic study of the timeline ? is that a ref to the virtual reconstruction?
He cannot say anything which might prejudice a fair trial and it is no surprise he is saying nothing about the parents' possible involvement.
I have seen the other clip where the video [the one I saw at least started at his point...] starts with his saying he is satisfied that someone took the child from her apartment, then mentions stranger abduction. I do not know if he was asked a leading question by the interviewer, put on the spot, he would have been in hot water to deny that possibility, because it implicates the parents immediately. I was surprised he did not announce that as a possibility, rather than say he was satisifed a stranger took Maddie, however the word stranger has a legal definition which is not as laypeople would understand it and maybe he was using the word that way.

I have read AR say different things to different papers, that there were MOMENTS when she might have been taken alive from the apartmtent, elsewhere that has changed to the nonsensical the timeline is evidence that she may be alive........that is bad journalism, if timeline allows abduction, there is no logical step at all to lead to belief she IS alive, quite the contrary; he knows the statistics. There is stuff for public consumption which possibly, hopefully, bears little resemblance to what is happening behind the scenes.
I am trying to keep in mind his words that Madeleine McCann is at the heart of everything his team is doing.
And the report in one paper that a key area of investigation is mobile phone analysis.

[o/t]

I would guess there is a lot of photo analysis going on. Madeleine was a child who was photographed numerous times, yet very little on an occasion you would expect more than average in a day, let alone a week.
The iconic photo does not imo show a child due to start school within the year.
Neither does the pool photo.
The tennis one does.
So the media were presented with a child younger than 3 imo.
The twins were photographed at the same time at the iconic photo, I have seen those photographs.
And they were photographed 5 months later.
They look more than 5 months older to me in the Portugal photos.
I hope a forensic specialist is called in,to enlarge the photos massively, measure limbs esp legs which are used for age calculation and decide if Maddie and the twins are only 5 months older than the earlier photos. And I hope they do that with Donegal.
Perversion of the course of justice is a serious crime.

by **tigger** 28.04.12 14:04

RussianDoll wrote:

I have seen the other clip where the video [the one I saw at least started at his point...] starts with his saying he is satisfied that someone took the child from her apartment, then mentions stranger abduction. I do not know if he was asked a leading question by the interviewer, put on the spot, he would have been in hot water to deny that possibility, because it implicates the parents immediately. I was surprised he did not announce that as a possibility, rather than say he was satisifed a stranger took Maddie, however the word stranger has a legal definition which is not as laypeople would understand it and maybe he was using the word that way.
unquote.

It is quite possible that a stranger took Maddie from the apartment. (Don't faint!) Because I've been convinced all along that the transfer of the body was not done by either parent. We have lots of forensic linguistics to indicate that - and Dr. Roberts.

by Guest 28.04.12 14:06

tigger wrote:RussianDoll wrote:

I have seen the other clip where the video [the one I saw at least started at his point...] starts with his saying he is satisfied that someone took the child from her apartment, then mentions stranger abduction. I do not know if he was asked a leading question by the interviewer, put on the spot, he would have been in hot water to deny that possibility, because it implicates the parents immediately. I was surprised he did not announce that as a possibility, rather than say he was satisifed a stranger took Maddie, however the word stranger has a legal definition which is not as laypeople would understand it and maybe he was using the word that way.
unquote.

It is quite possible that a stranger took Maddie from the apartment. (Don't faint!) Because I've been convinced all along that the transfer of the body was not done by either parent. We have lots of forensic linguistics to indicate that - and Dr. Roberts.

Didn't Kate McCann shout "they've taken her"

by friedtomatoes 28.04.12 14:10

candyfloss wrote:
tigger wrote:RussianDoll wrote:

I have seen the other clip where the video [the one I saw at least started at his point...] starts with his saying he is satisfied that someone took the child from her apartment, then mentions stranger abduction. I do not know if he was asked a leading question by the interviewer, put on the spot, he would have been in hot water to deny that possibility, because it implicates the parents immediately. I was surprised he did not announce that as a possibility, rather than say he was satisifed a stranger took Maddie, however the word stranger has a legal definition which is not as laypeople would understand it and maybe he was using the word that way.
unquote.

It is quite possible that a stranger took Maddie from the apartment. (Don't faint!) Because I've been convinced all along that the transfer of the body was not done by either parent. We have lots of forensic linguistics to indicate that - and Dr. Roberts.

Didn't Kate McCann shout "they've taken her"

Yes, she said that according to David Payne's rogatory interview. I wonder who she was thinking of.

by **tigger** 28.04.12 14:17

And here's Dr. Roberts, McCannfiles.com 2007

Dr. Roberts has analysed a certain 'handover' scenario from what Kate said. The 'she has been taken away from us' makes them part of the process. I'm convinced that the disposal of the body was done by a third party with the help of Gerry probably.

quote: It is something of a puzzle as to how, given our instinctual avoidance of telling lies, GM was able to make his unforgettable homecoming statement on the airport runway without showing any obvious sign of discomfort ('...except to say that we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine.'). Although he substituted 'disappearance' for 'abduction', the opening disclaimer, 'we played no part in', remains troublesome. If this was not lying, might that have been because GM privately and deliberately misconstrued 'no part' as 'no active part', thereby dismissing any connection with the contributory negligence of child abandonment? Or was he being absolutely truthful?
There may be sufficient evidence to confirm that Madeleine was not the victim of a 'stranger abduction', but how do we know someone else did not make her 'disappear'? We do not. And if the McCanns were not directly responsible for any injury to the child in the first instance, then GM's statement is entirely valid and entirely truthful into the bargain.
unquote -

by russiandoll 28.04.12 15:08

I read recently that abduction by a stranger in law is defined as a person unknown or slightly known to the victim. I wonder if it encompasses what is in Canadian law...... will do some research, I think these would be covered by "slightly known to"
It is important to note that the Canadian law enforcement definition of a stranger not only refers to someone totally unknown to the child victim but also refers to relatives, friends, and acquaintances

by russiandoll 28.04.12 16:53

jd wrote:The 'you knows' are back

(Why) Do you believe she is still alive?....I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind

What on earth is this answer????

It is like the rogatories.
Not what he really knows to be the case.
In fact, after re reading this transcript, I think he used a heck of a lot of words to say nothing, really

by **PeterMac** 28.04.12 17:36

russiandoll wrote:
jd wrote:The 'you knows' are back
(Why) Do you believe she is still alive?....I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review. Is that we came with a completely open mind
What on earth is this answer????
It is like the rogatories.
Not what he really knows to be the case.
In fact, after re reading this transcript, I think he used a heck of a lot of words to say nothing, really

He is simply changing the subject, which allows him to say something since he cannot answer the question directly, either because his brain refuses to lie, or because he knows the rules about prejudicing a trial. One other way of doing this, to put the questioner off the scent, is to do the sort of rapid gibbering that CM employs. The interviewer ends up so shell shocked, and unable to recall what he has just said that he cannot then formulate the killer supplementary question, and ends up having to move on to the next topic.

by Guest 28.04.12 18:06

Oh dear, the curse......

Daybreak-up: Is time up for ITV1's troubled breakfast show just two years after £10m flop programme was launched?

12:36, 28 April 2012

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

by Ribisl 28.04.12 18:43

Just been reading up all the posts here as well as the post Panorama discussion and comments thread, but I am none the wiser. Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to why BBC aired this programme when they did, why Brunt's reporting appeared more in line with the MCs version of the event compared to his original Panorama reporting back in 2007, why Redwood participated in it and why he said what he said.

Madeleine and the McCanns by association are a hugely marketable commodity for the media who would naturally jump at any development, real or otherwise, in this sorry saga. So from the commercial point of view, I can understand BBC wanting to make this programme to coincide with her birthday and hype it as much as they could, at the same time toeing the TM line more or less so to avoid any possible libel. Yes, I can appreciate all that but still find it hard to accept the BBC have stooped to such a level as to be resorting to the kind of reporting we expect from the gutter press or Hello. What's happened to the journalistic integrity?

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
SPJ Code of Ethics

Even harder to comprehend is the comportment of the SY. That they should have considered it fit to accept the invitation for DCI Redwood to appear on Panorama (not to mention Daybreak and possibly more to follow) while their review is ongoing, knowing that he could not give an honest account or opinion without jeopardising the current investigation and/or any possible future trial. I keep thinking there had to be a hidden agenda but so far I fail to see any positive coming out of this as far as the SY are concerned. On the face of it, the prime motive for their collaboration was to appeal to the wider public to look out for Madeleine by publicising yet another age-progressed picture. But why now? I remain open minded but am bemused.

by Lance De Boils 28.04.12 20:00

6.4. There will always be a degree of subjectivity in interpreting the term “stranger” in relation to SCAS criteria and contact officers are encouraged to liaise closely with the relevant SCAS assistant analyst (at NPIA) in relation to specific cases. As guidance the following definition and examples may be helpful: Stranger offences would be those where there has been no previous (or limited) peripheral contact between the victim and the suspect/offender. Examples of the coding “stranger” include:
where the suspect was the brother of the victim’s friend and they met for the first time on the day of the offence;
where the suspect and victim were briefly known to each other e.g. the offender chatted the victim up in the bar immediately prior to the offence;
the victim had no prior knowledge of the suspect and they had not met before the offence;
where the victim is a client of a prostitute (and there had been limited previous interaction between the two);
where there had been no face-to-face contact prior to the offending e.g. instances of internet or telephone communication;
where the suspect is familiar with the victim but it is not necessarily reciprocated and the victim is unlikely to know anything but the most basic personal information about the suspect e.g. bar person, postal worker, youth worker, shop keeper etc.

Examples of how "stranger" can be defined in aspects of the law.
Taken from
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]