ANDY REDWOOD; PERHAPS WE HAVE BEEN TOO HASTY

Don't know if anyone agrees here but perhaps some of us have been a little harsh re. Andy Redwood. I think that his words and speech were deliberately chosen to instill disbelief in the general UK public. After all, he must have very good brains to get where he has. Who knows what is going on up there in mucville. Perhaps he was threatened to toe the official mucville line and the only way out for him was to put out the rubbish investigations done by TM, thereby showing the public who has enough sense what a [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]farce the TM investigation was. Ditto for the journalist aired on Panorama (sorry am South African, don't have a TV, and 3G internet too expensive to watch,). He and a very few others were probably also leaned upon to propagate the TM timeline. This he did admirably by putting out the TM timeline almost as a verbal review which showed up the glaring inconsistencies making the public jump for the net in order to find out the truth. Twas just too much for any thinking person to swallow. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] After all the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] is in the details..... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Snifferdog wrote:Don't know if anyone agrees here but perhaps some of us have been a little harsh re. Andy Redwood. I think that his words and speech were deliberately chosen to instill disbelief in the general UK public. After all, he must have very good brains to get where he has.

My feelings entirely.

Hi Petermac, I feel very relieved as even though this happened far away for me, as it has global implications, and shows that the rot has not penetrated everywhere.
Just want to say GO ANDY REDWOOD there are many behind you! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The fact that he couldn't stop smirking says he knew he was lying IMO.

It must be hard for him to be put in such a position and I imagine he didn't want to go on camera and say the things he did.

This Mcnightmare of a "review" is making yet another mockery of Scotland Yard. What professional police force values psychics above evrd dog evidence. it appears SY do thanks to their imposed "remit".

Hi Gillyspot

I think Andy Redwood was smirking at TM as he knew he had them by the short and curlies so to speak. After all he managed to wake up a Lot of people to the fact that something was seriously amiss in the MM case. He gave them enough rope, and used their TM Spin/Metodo stuff to hang themselves. No person in his position would seriously expect the general public (the thinking ones) to swallow such rubbish. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Andy Redwoods speech opened up the floodgates which now can never be shut.

I just don't buy it at all. Why did he have to say ANYTHING? A simple phrase or "no comment at this time" would have done the job but look at what has happened as a result of his talking...

A. He has given OFFICIAL sanction to the notion that she is alive and in interviews has focused on that more than the death hypothesis.

B: The damned photo. Bound to generate a huge number of fasle sighting which not only give the McCanns plenty of fuel for further headline grabbing but is bound to waste yet more police time with calls of sightings of this bland "everygirl" image.

C. All of this was timed with the anniversary which again played into the McCanns hands. The photo could have been released earlier - dammit it SHOULD have been released earlier if they are working on the idea of her being alive but no, much better to wait on an anniversary.

D. The fund. If SY are working mainly on Maddie being dead (and parents knowing) then they KNOW the fund is fraudulent. By giving these encouraging interviews and headlines they are ENCOURAGING the fund to continue. They are not only ALLOWING it to continue they hav contributed material to HELP them raise more money.

So weigh it up. Option 1. They could have said nothing. They didn't they went for Option 2. And what they said helped TM all the way to the bank. I don't think this is a game, I don't think they are winding TM up, I think they are every bit as in the pocket of TM as News International and it seems the people who run the country.

Mind you, I'd love to be wrong.

nomendelta wrote:I just don't buy it at all. Why did he have to say ANYTHING? A simple phrase or "no comment at this time" would have done the job but look at what has happened as a result of his talking...

A. He has given OFFICIAL sanction to the notion that she is alive and in interviews has focused on that more than the death hypothesis.

B: The damned photo. Bound to generate a huge number of fasle sighting which not only give the McCanns plenty of fuel for further headline grabbing but is bound to waste yet more police time with calls of sightings of this bland "everygirl" image.

C. All of this was timed with the anniversary which again played into the McCanns hands. The photo could have been released earlier - dammit it SHOULD have been released earlier if they are working on the idea of her being alive but no, much better to wait on an anniversary.

D. The fund. If SY are working mainly on Maddie being dead (and parents knowing) then they KNOW the fund is fraudulent. By giving these encouraging interviews and headlines they are ENCOURAGING the fund to continue. They are not only ALLOWING it to continue they hav contributed material to HELP them raise more money.

So weigh it up. Option 1. They could have said nothing. They didn't they went for Option 2. And what they said helped TM all the way to the bank. I don't think this is a game, I don't think they are winding TM up, I think they are every bit as in the pocket of TM as News International and it seems the people who run the country.

Mind you, I'd love to be wrong.

I agree with you Nomendelta, but I suspect that AR must have had his arm twisted. He is a DCI - so presumably wishes to retire after attaining a highter rank. The only thing I can think of is that he was simply told to do it and he slipped in a few facts under the radar.

SY told us at the start that there would be no report until the review was finished.

Unless the other news that needed to be buried or justified is the evidence of Rebecca Brooks - DC's arms was twisted by NI, but look! We got results!

Hi Nomendelta
I agree that he could have said nothing but that would have meant that the public would not have got the hint and question the story.
I too believe that his arm was twisted and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place and he used this opportunity as best he could. Anyone with something between their two ears would know he was talking rubbish and sense something was afoot, and begin to question what they are being fed. Who knows how he was leant on, family threatened, who knows? Perhaps this was the only way out for him? He was very noncommital in his speech and actually said nothing, this made people sit up and think what the heck! Time will tell and for the meantime I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Snifferdog wrote:Hi Nomendelta
I agree that he could have said nothing but that would have meant that the public would not have got the hint and question the story.
I too believe that his arm was twisted and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place and he used this opportunity as best he could. Anyone with something between their two ears would know he was talking rubbish and sense something was afoot, and begin to question what they are being fed. Who knows how he was leant on, family threatened, who knows? Perhaps this was the only way out for him? He was very noncommital in his speech and actually said nothing, this made people sit up and think what the heck! Time will tell and for the meantime I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I saw a bit of him on Lorraine Kelly's show. When asked if he believed she was alive he unequivocally said "yes". There are certain times he has come across as hedging his bets but it seems to me that as time went on he favoured the alive scenario more and more.

And I don't buy the public questioning it. I think that most are following the party line and the people speaking out are more fed up with the story and attention rather than so much pointing the finger at the McCanns and calling them guilty. I don't sense a big turn of public opinion at all other than teh story being over-exposed.

Well living in sunny S Africa I suppose I haven't suffered the full Brunt of the 5 year TM onslaught....and only hear about it when I choose to. I honestly cannot say I know the truth, whether he is involved in a coverup or no. If it were me thinking what I think, I may have done exactly the same. For example (the following being all just conjecture); if someone had to threaten me with something that May happen to my nearest and dearest etc. We actually really just don't know. You say most people are not interested and sick of the whole saga but seems to me they can't get enough of it, as I am sure the Sun and its relatives have sold and are still selling lots of papers on the back of Madeleine. I rest my case.

nomendelta wrote:I just don't buy it at all. Why did he have to say ANYTHING? A simple phrase or "no comment at this time" would have done the job but look at what has happened as a result of his talking...

A. He has given OFFICIAL sanction to the notion that she is alive and in interviews has focused on that more than the death hypothesis.

B: The damned photo. Bound to generate a huge number of fasle sighting which not only give the McCanns plenty of fuel for further headline grabbing but is bound to waste yet more police time with calls of sightings of this bland "everygirl" image.

C. All of this was timed with the anniversary which again played into the McCanns hands. The photo could have been released earlier - dammit it SHOULD have been released earlier if they are working on the idea of her being alive but no, much better to wait on an anniversary.

D. The fund. If SY are working mainly on Maddie being dead (and parents knowing) then they KNOW the fund is fraudulent. By giving these encouraging interviews and headlines they are ENCOURAGING the fund to continue. They are not only ALLOWING it to continue they hav contributed material to HELP them raise more money.

So weigh it up. Option 1. They could have said nothing. They didn't they went for Option 2. And what they said helped TM all the way to the bank. I don't think this is a game, I don't think they are winding TM up, I think they are every bit as in the pocket of TM as News International and it seems the people who run the country.

Mind you, I'd love to be wrong.

I agree with your points entirely. It is quite unthinkable that they are playing some kind of mind games over the national media. That would be an appalling travesty of what our police force and justice system should stand for. Or have we allowed the media to become so powerful that they can now not only blackmail politicians with impunity but also manipulate how SY conduct their investigations? I sincerely hope not.

Ribisl wrote:

nomendelta wrote:I just don't buy it at all. Why did he have to say ANYTHING? A simple phrase or "no comment at this time" would have done the job but look at what has happened as a result of his talking...

A. He has given OFFICIAL sanction to the notion that she is alive and in interviews has focused on that more than the death hypothesis.

B: The damned photo. Bound to generate a huge number of fasle sighting which not only give the McCanns plenty of fuel for further headline grabbing but is bound to waste yet more police time with calls of sightings of this bland "everygirl" image.

C. All of this was timed with the anniversary which again played into the McCanns hands. The photo could have been released earlier - dammit it SHOULD have been released earlier if they are working on the idea of her being alive but no, much better to wait on an anniversary.

D. The fund. If SY are working mainly on Maddie being dead (and parents knowing) then they KNOW the fund is fraudulent. By giving these encouraging interviews and headlines they are ENCOURAGING the fund to continue. They are not only ALLOWING it to continue they hav contributed material to HELP them raise more money.

So weigh it up. Option 1. They could have said nothing. They didn't they went for Option 2. And what they said helped TM all the way to the bank. I don't think this is a game, I don't think they are winding TM up, I think they are every bit as in the pocket of TM as News International and it seems the people who run the country.

Mind you, I'd love to be wrong.

I agree with your points entirely. It is quite unthinkable that they are playing some kind of mind games over the national media. That would be an appalling travesty of what our police force and justice system should stand for. Or have we allowed the media to become so powerful that they can now not only blackmail politicians with impunity but also manipulate how SY conduct their investigations? I sincerely hope not.

I believe we have been sleeping whilst the mechanisms have been set up, the oiled wheels have been turning for many years now, and many people are only now becoming aware of it, mainly due to access of info on the net. I was brought up not to swallow all that we are fed by the media, and to go and find out for myself. The whole setup like a rotten apple that taints everything that touches it. If anyone believes the TM rubbish after rebekahs testimony all I say that there is the proof of years of media and govt brainwashing. Those that tried to warn the public were called conspiracy theorists, which played right into these very peoples hands. Feed the people rubbish movies and filth. Sow confusion, disharmony so that they can divide and rule etc etc. Now I sound like a conspiracy theorist don't I? Its all out there for everyone to see if they care to.

nomendelta wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Hi Nomendelta
I agree that he could have said nothing but that would have meant that the public would not have got the hint and question the story.
I too believe that his arm was twisted and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place and he used this opportunity as best he could. Anyone with something between their two ears would know he was talking rubbish and sense something was afoot, and begin to question what they are being fed. Who knows how he was leant on, family threatened, who knows? Perhaps this was the only way out for him? He was very noncommital in his speech and actually said nothing, this made people sit up and think what the heck! Time will tell and for the meantime I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I saw a bit of him on Lorraine Kelly's show. When asked if he believed she was alive he unequivocally said "yes". There are certain times he has come across as hedging his bets but it seems to me that as time went on he favoured the alive scenario more and more.

And I don't buy the public questioning it. I think that most are following the party line and the people speaking out are more fed up with the story and attention rather than so much pointing the finger at the McCanns and calling them guilty. I don't sense a big turn of public opinion at all other than teh story being over-exposed.

but he could not possible have said "No.', because the next question would inevitably have been
"What evidence do you have for making that statement ?"

He needs no evidence to believe that M is alive. She was once, and you need evidence, more than just suspicion, to prove the contrary.
The dogs, the statistics, the behaviour of the parents, the lies and contradictions in the statements and so on are indications, some very powerful ones, which might lead you to examine that possibility, which is what he said clearly he was doing, but in answer to a direct question, with his reply going out to the world, he had no option but to do as he did.

PeterMac wrote:

nomendelta wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Hi Nomendelta
I agree that he could have said nothing but that would have meant that the public would not have got the hint and question the story.
I too believe that his arm was twisted and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place and he used this opportunity as best he could. Anyone with something between their two ears would know he was talking rubbish and sense something was afoot, and begin to question what they are being fed. Who knows how he was leant on, family threatened, who knows? Perhaps this was the only way out for him? He was very noncommital in his speech and actually said nothing, this made people sit up and think what the heck! Time will tell and for the meantime I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I saw a bit of him on Lorraine Kelly's show. When asked if he believed she was alive he unequivocally said "yes". There are certain times he has come across as hedging his bets but it seems to me that as time went on he favoured the alive scenario more and more.

And I don't buy the public questioning it. I think that most are following the party line and the people speaking out are more fed up with the story and attention rather than so much pointing the finger at the McCanns and calling them guilty. I don't sense a big turn of public opinion at all other than teh story being over-exposed.

but he could not possible have said "No.', because the next question would inevitably have been
"What evidence do you have for making that statement ?"

He needs no evidence to believe that M is alive. She was once, and you need evidence, more than just suspicion, to prove the contrary.
The dogs, the statistics, the behaviour of the parents, the lies and contradictions in the statements and so on are indications, some very powerful ones, which might lead you to examine that possibility, which is what he said clearly he was doing, but in answer to a direct question, with his reply going out to the world, he had no option but to do as he did.

PM - but what is his modus operandi in your opinion? The SY head of investigation was not dictated by anyone to appear on these shows and put himself in the position of having to answer such questions, which in turn created a certain impression (whichever way we care to interpret it) in the public domain.

[quote="nomendelta"]

Snifferdog wrote:Hi Nomendelta

I saw a bit of him on Lorraine Kelly's show. When asked if he believed she was alive he unequivocally said "yes". There are certain times he has come across as hedging his bets but it seems to me that as time went on he favoured the alive scenario more and more.

And I don't buy the public questioning it. I think that most are following the party line and the people speaking out are more fed up with the story and attention rather than so much pointing the finger at the McCanns and calling them guilty. I don't sense a big turn of public opinion at all other than teh story being over-exposed.

Nomendelta, I think your summary here and the previous one on this issue are quite excellent. There is no turn of public perception on this issue simply an enforced apathy through overkill. Mainstream media, tv, radio, newspapers do not teach people how to think, they tell them what to think and those that can move beyond the boundds of this confinement are few and usually ostracised. Heck 90% of people don't even go beyond the headlines and certainly won't when such a level of apathy has been installed. Yet by a mere scanning of headlines most will claim to be up to date on this charade. How ludicrous. Ludicrous that is to you and I, but not the writers of such scripts. It appears to me that Redwood has said absolutely nothing to separate his enquiry from the Mcann agenda not a thing in a piece of masterly propaganda imho. Quite the opposite. Just like Leveson. And almost every other official body come to think of it.

Many people make the huge mistake of thinking that just because a man reaches the middling(ish) rank of DCI in an organisation the size of the Met that he is both a brain and honourable, a super sleuth with one hand on his heart and the other on the bible as he cuts and thrusts with his sword of justice bringing down the dark elements for the benefit of society. It maybe that he is, I would like it to be so, but I don't see it. I hope I'm wrong. Are presidents, prime ministers and their cabinet and closest allies intelligent people? undoubtedly so. Are they honourable to their office, to the ideals that people expect and which the people childishly voted them in for? Time was once the answer to that for most would have been yes, I suggest a poll today would say something very different indeed......

PeterMac wrote:

nomendelta wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Hi Nomendelta
I agree that he could have said nothing but that would have meant that the public would not have got the hint and question the story.
I too believe that his arm was twisted and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place and he used this opportunity as best he could. Anyone with something between their two ears would know he was talking rubbish and sense something was afoot, and begin to question what they are being fed. Who knows how he was leant on, family threatened, who knows? Perhaps this was the only way out for him? He was very noncommital in his speech and actually said nothing, this made people sit up and think what the heck! Time will tell and for the meantime I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I saw a bit of him on Lorraine Kelly's show. When asked if he believed she was alive he unequivocally said "yes". There are certain times he has come across as hedging his bets but it seems to me that as time went on he favoured the alive scenario more and more.

And I don't buy the public questioning it. I think that most are following the party line and the people speaking out are more fed up with the story and attention rather than so much pointing the finger at the McCanns and calling them guilty. I don't sense a big turn of public opinion at all other than teh story being over-exposed.

but he could not possible have said "No.', because the next question would inevitably have been
"What evidence do you have for making that statement ?"

He needs no evidence to believe that M is alive. She was once, and you need evidence, more than just suspicion, to prove the contrary.
The dogs, the statistics, the behaviour of the parents, the lies and contradictions in the statements and so on are indications, some very powerful ones, which might lead you to examine that possibility, which is what he said clearly he was doing, but in answer to a direct question, with his reply going out to the world, he had no option but to do as he did.

Oer I think my post just got lost so I shall retype it. I agree Petermac. Andy Redwood cannot say that Madeleine is dead as he has only been through 1/4 of the evidence including TM drivel. The following a scenario for eg. Imagine of mccs planned it to look like Maddy was murdered but instead hawked off to a new family. as the mccs are doctors they could possibly have easy access to a piece of human meat at the hospital incinerator or after surgery. Said piece is vacuum packed ready for the hols. to be used as a Red Herring where ever it is placed to contaminate and leave the scent of cadaver. Should have been nicely ripe by the time it got to the scenic, Yuk! also well mixed up with dna of Maddies to confuse the outcome of any lab studies. They cut Maddies hair to make her look like a boy and hand her over to her new family clothes and all, hence Maddies rootless cut hair as found in the scenic. This is just a scenario/theory created to show why Andy Redwood cannot as yet say that she is dead. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Oops forgot to mention that Murats daughter looks remarkably like Madeleine........

[quote="monkey mind"]

nomendelta wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Hi Nomendelta

I saw a bit of him on Lorraine Kelly's show. When asked if he believed she was alive he unequivocally said "yes". There are certain times he has come across as hedging his bets but it seems to me that as time went on he favoured the alive scenario more and more.

And I don't buy the public questioning it. I think that most are following the party line and the people speaking out are more fed up with the story and attention rather than so much pointing the finger at the McCanns and calling them guilty. I don't sense a big turn of public opinion at all other than teh story being over-exposed.

Nomendelta, I think your summary here and the previous one on this issue are quite excellent. There is no turn of public perception on this issue simply an enforced apathy through overkill. Mainstream media, tv, radio, newspapers do not teach people how to think, they tell them what to think and those that can move beyond the boundds of this confinement are few and usually ostracised. Heck 90% of people don't even go beyond the headlines and certainly won't when such a level of apathy has been installed. Yet by a mere scanning of headlines most will claim to be up to date on this charade. How ludicrous. Ludicrous that is to you and I, but not the writers of such scripts. It appears to me that Redwood has said absolutely nothing to separate his enquiry from the Mcann agenda not a thing in a piece of masterly propaganda imho. Quite the opposite. Just like Leveson. And almost every other official body come to think of it.

Many people make the huge mistake of thinking that just because a man reaches the middling(ish) rank of DCI in an organisation the size of the Met that he is both a brain and honourable, a super sleuth with one hand on his heart and the other on the bible as he cuts and thrusts with his sword of justice bringing down the dark elements for the benefit of society. It maybe that he is, I would like it to be so, but I don't see it. I hope I'm wrong. Are presidents, prime ministers and their cabinet and closest allies intelligent people? undoubtedly so. Are they honourable to their office, to the ideals that people expect and which the people childishly voted them in for? Time was once the answer to that for most would have been yes, I suggest a poll today would say something very different indeed......

There may be a 'third' way! The 2 million pounds did rankle a bit with the public I think. What with Leveson coming up, Rebecca Brooks et al, DC may have thought it a good idea to have some public exposure with a 'result'. It doesn't matter that it isn't, but the headlines screaming 'She's alive!!!' - only one interpretation that can be put on AR's mystic utterances the other being that she is dead - would look good and sell papers, something RB must like.
Pre Panorama he said it was to achieve 'closure'
On Panorama we got quantum physics - she could be both alive an dead and we wouldn't know until we looked in the box.
On breakfast this was tweaked to her probably being alive.
Later we hear that it will cost more money and take another 3 years.
Is this to get the PM out of the hole RB has dug for him?

But the other reason I have some hope left, is that the McCanns themselves seem curiously subdued, almost doing interviews by rote - there is something in their attitude that doesn't convey victory. They seem to have become pawns in the game themselves.

I agree with nomendelta. Redwood did not need to make television appearances. He was also free to talk about the probability, or likelihood of Madeleine being alive. In fact he did to begin with and it was 50/50 according to him. But as the days progressed his belief that Madeleine was alive grew stronger. As for him being threatened, if a police officer does not know how to deal with that, we`re all in trouble.

I do not think the public are going to be pleased that it has cost £2 million and the review has another three years to run at the present rate they are reading the files.

What Redwood`s TV appearances have done is to support the family around anniversary and book launching time. Supporting the family - was that not part of the remit for the review?

Snifferdog wrote:Andy Redwoods speech opened up the floodgates which now can never be shut.

Spot on.

jmac wrote:I agree with nomendelta. Redwood did not need to make television appearances. He was also free to talk about the probability, or likelihood of Madeleine being alive. In fact he did to begin with and it was 50/50 according to him. But as the days progressed his belief that Madeleine was alive grew stronger. As for him being threatened, if a police officer does not know how to deal with that, we`re all in trouble.

I do not think the public are going to be pleased that it has cost £2 million and the review has another three years to run at the present rate they are reading the files.

What Redwood`s TV appearances have done is to support the family around anniversary and book launching time. Supporting the family - was that not part of the remit for the review?

The funny thing is, I've not seen much in the news about the paperback, it's not been mentioned much over the last weeks - very strange. I'm still convinced they're more subdued. Especially in the press conference (sic!) who are these people to give press conferences!

Ribisl wrote:I agree with [nomendelta's] points entirely. It is quite unthinkable that they are playing some kind of mind games over the national media. That would be an appalling travesty of what our police force and justice system should stand for. Or have we allowed the media to become so powerful that they can now not only blackmail politicians with impunity but also manipulate how SY conduct their investigations? I sincerely hope not.

To answer your last question, Ribisl, surely we HAVE indeed reached (or have very nearly done so) the point where the media can (a) 'blackmail politicians with impunity' and (b) 'manipulate how SY conduct their investigations'.

Let us review a few recent facts:

1. John Yates of SY refused to investigate 'phone hacking at the News of the World (NOTW). Why? Because he and others amongst the top brass of the nation's top police force were in bed with News International (NI). NI paid them, wined and dined them, offered them lucrative contracts writing for their newspapers, and got their own men to be paid to advise the Yard on media relations! - look at Andy Hayman as a supreme example of all this

2. The British Prime Minster has been reduced to sending lovey dovey text messages to Rebekah Wade and wishes her well just as her role in the 'phone hacking scandal becomes ever clearer

3. It has virtually been admitted that Rebekah Wade/NI twisted Cameron's arm, who then forced former Met boss Sir Paul Stephenson to commit £3.5 million to a review of the Madeleine McCann case, a figure which looks like it might treble or quadruple in years to come; even some London Assembly members Lord harris, jenney Jones) voiced their disapproval, saying that there were more urgent priorties for 37 staff including several senior officers

4. It is as plain as a pikestaff that Cameron appoointed Jeremy Hunt in place of Vince Cable to handle the £8 billion BSkyB bid, with a view to handing control to Murdoch; his plans were foiled, though

5. Going back to 2009, everyone knows that when Cameron met Murdoch on a yacht in the Mediterranean in 2009, he reached a deal with Murdoch...well, call it an 'understanding': "I'll get my papers to back you, in return you deliver me BSkyB". Two weeks after this Mediterranean tryst, the Sun switched its support from Labour to Conservative, and Cameron did what he was told and appointed ex NOTW editor Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications (and later, Cameron and Coulson appointed Clarence Mitchell as Assistant Director of Communications - the only man to have got top jobs in media manipulation both for Labour and for the Tories. Mitchell was a Murdoch man through-and-through as shown by his appointment to a plum PR job with Freud Communications, owned by Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, once he ceased to work full-time with the McCanns).

Other examples of NI's unhealthy influence on poilitical decison-making are legion.

Turning now to the subject of D.C.I. Andy Redwood's recent press releases, press statements and T.V. appearances, may I just make these observations, without making any further comment:

1. He has personally commissioned, at taxpayer's expense, one age-progressed picture of what Madeleine might look like, aged 9

2. He has ensured by his appearances on Panaroma, Good Morning and elsewhere that the overwhelming majority of British people saw this picture

3. By doing so - in fact he said as much - he is asking the whole of the British nation to actively 'look' for Madeleine who, by inference, may be alive and living in the U.K.

4. He has stated that he has 195 potentially successful lines of evidence and hinted that he might need another two or three years to complete his task (whatever that means)

5. Accodrdng to Dr Kate McCann's latest book, the McCanns met in London with Redwood and a whole team of his staff within a couple of weeks of his review being set up

6. In his own words, he has said that he has worked in 'close collaboration' with the McCanns throughout the last 12 months

7. He has (eventually, a few weeks ago) published the review's remit - which is to investigate Madeleine's reported disappearance 'as if the abduction happened in Britain'

8. As Cameron's adviser told the press, on the day Dr Kate McCann's book was published - and the day the Sun (not the Prime Minister, note) announced that SY would be conducting a £3.5 million review - that the purpose of the review was 'to support the family'.

These and other similar facts tell us fairly precisely IMO where this review is going.

I have been watching old episodes of Prime Suspect on Sky Anytime with Helen Mirren, wonderful character and actress. If some police really are corrupt as that it is depressing, however I am an eternal optimist and would bet on Mr Redwood not being as stupid as he may have come across. If that means anything I dont know. That the Brit police wou,d overlook the cadaver dog findings is to me quite astonishing to put it mildly Let us not forget the myriad of anecdotal tales of people speaking to police and others involved or connected to the case who all say somethig stinks.

Whoever puts an end to this circus is good in my books. I think the Leveson inquiry might be the spanner in the works to finally do it. Lets see. And not forgetting the vindicating of Dr Amaral. Sooner it happens the better. No one wants the charade to drag on a minute longer and a horriblr charade it is at best. The fear bullying and intimidation of dissenting voices and the inherent attack on freedom of speech AND THOUGHT is disgusting at best, what did so many die for in the wars, idiots! Eggs on faces will have to be endured, thats life! They will get over it.

If DCI Redwood has given the mccanns or their representatives, details from the Leics Police investigation which that police force and the Attorney General went to court to retain then he has broken the law and is guilty of contempt of court.

friedtomatoes wrote:I think the Leveson inquiry might be the spanner in the works to finally do it. Let's see.

Hmmm, Leveson transcript, 23 November 2011, Dr Gerald & Kate McCann:

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

pages 7, 8 and 33

WOODWARD wrote:If DCI Redwood has given the McCanns or their representatives, details from the Leics Police investigation - which that police force and the Attorney General went to court to retain - then he has broken the law and is guilty of contempt of court.

I am not sure that's a correct statement of the law. But of course the McCanns had much helpful information from Leicestershire Police from very early on. There were two officers captured on TV cameras delivering large carbroard boxes of evidence to the McCanns' house in Rothley, IIRC in September 2007, and as early as Tuesday 22 May, Dr Gerald McCann, in a short prepared speech to the world's press, began...

"Good afternoon. As you know, yesterday I spent the day in the UK attending a series of meetings. I met with our legal team and the police and the discussions we had were extremely productive. Later on I also visited the incident room in Leicester along with other family members, which was extremely informative and encouraging..."

Backed up by clarence eden mitchell who said 'he first met gerry at Leics Police Station "I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter's disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station. At the time I was working as part of the Consular Assistance Group, representing the foreigners department"

Tony Bennett wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:I think the Leveson inquiry might be the spanner in the works to finally do it. Let's see.

Hmmm, Leveson transcript, 23 November 2011, Dr Gerald & Kate McCann:

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

pages 7, 8 and 33

playing a part or ignorant and hoodwinked is my opinion is my take if not his balls shoukd be in the chopper too

i doubt a senior judge like leveson who has a strong ego is going to be done over, mr jay and his lerformance supports my opinion, i hioe all the liars rot, and that is TRULY rot

Tony Bennett wrote:

WOODWARD wrote:If DCI Redwood has given the McCanns or their representatives, details from the Leics Police investigation - which that police force and the Attorney General went to court to retain - then he has broken the law and is guilty of contempt of court.

I am not sure that's a correct statement of the law. But of course the McCanns had much helpful information from Leicestershire Police from very early on. There were two officers captured on TV cameras delivering large carbroard boxes of evidence to the McCanns' house in Rothley, IIRC in September 2007, and as early as Tuesday 22 May, Dr Gerald McCann, in a short prepared speech to the world's press, began...

"Good afternoon. As you know, yesterday I spent the day in the UK attending a series of meetings. I met with our legal team and the police and the discussions we had were extremely productive. Later on I also visited the incident room in Leicester along with other family members, which was extremely informative and encouraging..."

I can't imagine how the portuguese police felt betrayed by the UK police of all of those things you said above.

Now we have SY team who went in portugal to meet Oporto team, that for sure they must have had access to the files which was held back to the public. I'm afraid those files may have end up in the hands of the Mccanns!!!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with [nomendelta's] points entirely. It is quite unthinkable that they are playing some kind of mind games over the national media. That would be an appalling travesty of what our police force and justice system should stand for. Or have we allowed the media to become so powerful that they can now not only blackmail politicians with impunity but also manipulate how SY conduct their investigations? I sincerely hope not.

To answer your last question, Ribisl, surely we HAVE indeed reached (or have very nearly done so) the point where the media can (a) 'blackmail politicians with impunity' and (b) 'manipulate how SY conduct their investigations'.

Let us review a few recent facts:

1. John Yates of SY refused to investigate 'phone hacking at the News of the World (NOTW). Why? Because he and others amongst the top brass of the nation's top police force were in bed with News International (NI). NI paid them, wined and dined them, offered them lucrative contracts writing for their newspapers, and got their own men to be paid to advise the Yard on media relations! - look at Andy Hayman as a supreme example of all this

2. The British Prime Minster has been reduced to sending lovey dovey text messages to Rebekah Wade and wishes her well just as her role in the 'phone hacking scandal becomes ever clearer

3. It has virtually been admitted that Rebekah Wade/NI twisted Cameron's arm, who then forced former Met boss Sir Paul Stephenson to commit £3.5 million to a review of the Madeleine McCann case, a figure which looks like it might treble or quadruple in years to come; even some London Assembly members Lord harris, jenney Jones) voiced their disapproval, saying that there were more urgent priorties for 37 staff including several senior officers

4. It is as plain as a pikestaff that Cameron appoointed Jeremy Hunt in place of Vince Cable to handle the £8 billion BSkyB bid, with a view to handing control to Murdoch; his plans were foiled, though

5. Going back to 2009, everyone knows that when Cameron met Murdoch on a yacht in the Mediterranean in 2009, he reached a deal with Murdoch...well, call it an 'understanding': "I'll get my papers to back you, in return you deliver me BSkyB". Two weeks after this Mediterranean tryst, the Sun switched its support from Labour to Conservative, and Cameron did what he was told and appointed ex NOTW editor Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications (and later, Cameron and Coulson appointed Clarence Mitchell as Assistant Director of Communications - the only man to have got top jobs in media manipulation both for Labour and for the Tories. Mitchell was a Murdoch man through-and-through as shown by his appointment to a plum PR job with Freud Communications, owned by Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, once he ceased to work full-time with the McCanns).

Other examples of NI's unhealthy influence on poilitical decison-making are legion.

Turning now to the subject of D.C.I. Andy Redwood's recent press releases, press statements and T.V. appearances, may I just make these observations, without making any further comment:

1. He has personally commissioned, at taxpayer's expense, one age-progressed picture of what Madeleine might look like, aged 9

2. He has ensured by his appearances on Panaroma, Good Morning and elsewhere that the overwhelming majority of British people saw this picture

3. By doing so - in fact he said as much - he is asking the whole of the British nation to actively 'look' for Madeleine who, by inference, may be alive and living in the U.K.

4. He has stated that he has 195 potentially successful lines of evidence and hinted that he might need another two or three years to complete his task (whatever that means)

5. Accodrdng to Dr Kate McCann's latest book, the McCanns met in London with Redwood and a whole team of his staff within a couple of weeks of his review being set up

6. In his own words, he has said that he has worked in 'close collaboration' with the McCanns throughout the last 12 months

7. He has (eventually, a few weeks ago) published the review's remit - which is to investigate Madeleine's reported disappearance 'as if the abduction happened in Britain'

8. As Cameron's adviser told the press, on the day Dr Kate McCann's book was published - and the day the Sun (not the Prime Minister, note) announced that SY would be conducting a £3.5 million review - that the purpose of the review was 'to support the family'.

These and other similar facts tell us fairly precisely IMO where this review is going.

Tony - thank you for your considered reply. Much appreciated, especially as I only have time to dip in and out of this forum to keep myself abreast of what is going on, and therefore, although I was familiar with most of these facts, I felt it unsafe to draw a conclusion from my own suspicions. Your reply has merely reinforced my views on this matter, sadly, I must add.

Getting back to Redwood, I believe he has, by his own conducts, become a willing participant in the McCann circus and influenced the public opinion in their favour. Seeking truth appears to be the 199th item in this wretched investigation.