Met chief calls for decision on funding of Madeleine McCann review

Kiko = Santacoloma. Right?

Châtelaine wrote:Kiko = Santacoloma. Right?

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton

- He is the phone analyses expert. The phone records are mcCannfiles and here too I xpect, I just can't find it easily. I have the greatest trust in Kiko.

He sent all his analyses to SY. No reply I believe.

I still find it hard to believe that in a high profile case involving a British citizen- a vulnerable child- the MET didn't already have translated files in their possession. What about Leicestershire police and the Home/Foreign Offices? They didn't bother translating the files? Is this really conceivable?

tigger wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Kiko = Santacoloma. Right?

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton

- He is the phone analyses expert. The phone records are mcCannfiles and here too I xpect, I just can't find it easily. I have the greatest trust in Kiko.

He sent all his analyses to SY. No reply I believe.

I think, or would think, that all information sent to an inquiry should receive an acknowledgement. Tony would know more about this, and perhaps could enlighten us.

candyfloss wrote:

tigger wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Kiko = Santacoloma. Right?

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton

- He is the phone analyses expert. The phone records are mcCannfiles and here too I xpect, I just can't find it easily. I have the greatest trust in Kiko.

He sent all his analyses to SY. No reply I believe.

I think, or would think, that all information sent to an inquiry should receive an acknowledgement. Tony would know more about this, and perhaps could enlighten us.

***
Yes, I think it would. At least that ...

It doesn't.

PeterMac wrote:It doesn't.

***
Why?
Because it doesn't make sense?
IMO

This is interesting from Blacksmith's blog.

Particularly the last paragraph.

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


SUNDAY, 26 AUGUST 2012

End of the status quo?


Hogan-Howe bleats
Well, the Yard have spoken. Those who speak darkly of a whitewash, both our Portuguese friends who have the perfectly valid excuse that they don’t know the British system any more than we know the Portuguese,  and UK citizens, should reflect for a moment.

A “whitewash”, if it means anything, means a positive result for the McCanns – some sort of exoneration or some way  of putting the case against them to sleep. But the statements of Hogan-Howe and, before him, Redwood clearly indicate that nothing has been found to provide any basis for such a finding: the status quo remains and, if no more money is provided, it will still remain when the review is closed down.

We might ask proponents of such an outcome a very simple question. A whitewash posits a joint effort by police, secret services and government – oh dear, even describing it sounds silly – to give the couple a clean bill of health. The resources of the three bodies are easily sufficient  to knock together in a weekend false but irrefutable  documentary  evidence excluding the couple without going through the palaver of a review. So why haven’t they done it?

Now, back to reality.

The status quo
The factual status quo, remember, remains the definitive Portuguese prosecutors’ archiving summary which released the McCanns from their arguido status, stating that there was no evidence of any crime by the pair and that they had failed to demonstrate their innocence.  

Let’s turn to the 2012 BBC Panorama report which, unlike its 2007 predecessor, was made with the co-operation of the British police. In that programme Redwood said that the review was unique in its comprehensiveness:

DC Redwood: We are drawing together information from three separate sources; the legal enforcement bodies within Portugal, the UK law enforcement agencies of which obviously the police are a main part and also and unusually the private investigation world which as we know is an element that was used by Mr and Mrs McCann to further the search for their daughter… and so what we’ve done over the past number of months is bring into one place, i.e. here at Belgravia all of those, all of those pieces of the jigsaw.

Police forces leak important details when they are worried about resources – if they have any. It is evident from Hogan-Howe's comments that the triple sourced investigation has found nothing to add to or modify the prosecutors’ conclusions and, in particular, hasn't  located any new  suspects.

The views of those in Portugal, the only  country with  first-hand knowledge of the case and  the only country with knowledge of what the McCanns actually said when examined by the police (rather than what Kate McCann, a self-confessed liar, claims they said) and the only country to have considered the case against the pair judicially (in the civil courts) are fairly clear. The Portuguese appeal court judges  stated in 2010 that the prosecutors’ “opinions”, while valid,  were neither judicial nor definitive and that the “death in the apartment” claim remained an equally valid and non-excluded theory of events. As for the public, both educated and otherwise, we have Panorama again.

Carlos Anjos:I think something happened accidentally in the flat that night. In general I think most Portuguese investigators think the same as me. And I think there will be problems for the British authorities.

Bilton (Panorama): Despite Kate and Gerry McCann no longer being suspects, Portuguese public opinion hasn’t changed and it continues to be influenced by the man who initially led the investigation before he was removed.

Isabel Duarte: I feel alone because I don’t feel support, not in public opinion. I have friends that don’t want to talk to me about the case. Because everyone believes in Goncalo Amaral. Everyone believes that I am defending a father and a mother who have killed the daughter and got rid of the corpse.

Everyone.

Our footballers are the best in the world
We have this:

Bilton (Panorama): Here [i.e. in Britain] people seem to be open-minded.

There is not the slightest  evidence for Bilton’s comment. If “open-minded” means “willing to consider anybody as a perpetrator” then it is absolutely untrue, indeed absurdly so. The clear view in Britain, as put forward by the police (Redwood), a judge (Leveson), Parliament (the media select committee), all the television stations and their bosses, (Desmond, Murdoch), their reporters (Brunt, Simmons) all the quality newspapers and  their editors on oath at Leveson, all the tabloids and their journalists (in front of Leveson again)  and most of the readers’ comments in response to the latter’s stories, is that  Kate & Gerry McCann had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter and cannot be considered as suspects.

It is  clear that such unanimity can't be the result of  “hushing up” – it is  of course much too widespread. More importantly it is also clear that this unanimity of public opinion cannot be based on the evidence either, since, to take just two examples out of hundreds, the Portuguese prosecutors’ views quoted above are never quoted in full and are therefore unavailable to the majority: only the “no evidence” section, not the “failure to demonstrate their innocence” one is quoted in the UK media; and the Portuguese appeal court judgement that Amaral’s interpretation of the evidence was of equal validity to that same, legally untested, prosecutors' opinion, is almost unknown in Britain.

Something is wrong. One of these two countries is clearly not “open-minded” and is not looking coldly at all the evidence, even though it believes it is.There isn’t any alternative, is there? If UK opinion is right then Portugal’s is delusory and vice versa. Which one is it, Portugal or the United Kingdom? The country with all the first-hand knowledge  of the case cited above or the country whose only real connection to the affair is that the former arguidos were born in and have a loud voice in it?

Perhaps readers will have a clearer idea  now why we refer to the case as a “psychological” one. On the evidence above one country or the other, at least as expressed publicly,  is psychologically incapable of accepting possible  evidence and interpretations brought to its attention and is convinced that the other country’s view is wrong.

There is nothing new or revolutionary about this – it has happened throughout history once those enemies of the truth, national loyalties, are brought into action, whether in war, diplomacy or something as harmless as a football tournament. And it is the public media, the tabloids in particular, who have always been in the forefront of fanning atavistic flames. That’s something of a clue for the open-minded, isn’t it – which of the two countries was the first to whip their redtops into action and create an “enemy”? And citizens of which country used paid agents  to influence those tabloids?

Times change
Sometimes, however, events force the truth on  unwilling recipients. It may be that this four year status quo is finally about to end – but not through any efforts of Scotland Yard. In Britain the first of the prosecutors’ conclusions, the favourable one,  has sufficed for all purposes. In Portugal the other conclusion, that the pair “failed to demonstrate their innocence” is, assuming Goncalo Amaral can sustain his efforts,  about to be tested.

In Portuguese law libel claimants have to prove their accusations: Kate and Gerry McCann will finally have to demonstrate their innocence of involvement in the child’s disappearance in court if they are to win their case. To prove libel they will have to show that the prosecutors’ report, the one that has been so useful to them, is wrong. And then they will have the Herculean task of overturning the findings of the court of appeal judges on the validity of Amaral’s theory. If it were clear that developments since 2010 had overtaken the judgement they might have a good chance.  If Scotland Yard had managed to dig up a single suspect or even a tiny piece of real evidence, anything, for the lawyers to put before the court they might be home and dry. But the cupboard is empty.

Bad luck Kate, bad luck Gerry. You can blame nice Mr Redwood.

 
 

Posted by john blacksmith at 18:38

This is an overview of Kikoratton's mobile phone activity analyse. Wonder why SY gave no acknowledgement? Because it is too close to the truth thats why!!!

Remember how difficult it was for Tony to get just a name of who was leading the review so he could send his evidence to them...Remember when after all the correspondence he finally got a name then they said 'by all means' (as if they really cared and wanted it) if he wanted to send any evidence. Redwood is there to do a job, he has done it before on previous high profile cases and why he was chosen to lead the madeleine mccann review

Unfortunately for Redwood some of us are wiser to the true nature of his employment in this role and have facts from his previous roles and what he was there for. Then we have the trolls who are here to support (I know who all you are) they like to think they are special but in truth they are so ridiculous beyond comprehension it does make you seriously wonder about life's intelligence (its actually very sad as well as highly embarrassing they come from the same country as me and other intelligent posters). I do try to defend the GB but it is difficult when we have morons like the trolls, not an ounce of respect, decency, dignity, honesty, intelligence,care, of the life they were fortunate to have been given


Kikoratton:

"Robert Murat turned his mobile back on after a long silent interval at 2320 on 3 May. One of his first calls was from Sergi Malinka, his computer guru. But at least one hour before KM raised the alarm, Sergi and his friends were chatting profusely by phone, leading me to wonder whether word of “something” had got out before the official announcement by Kate.
The vital piece of evidence, however, is this: RM’s mobile phone silence had begun at 1545 on 2 May, and ended at 2320 on 3 May just after KM’s shout. That’s 31h 35m of silence. Gerry had been taking numerous calls made to his voicemail box on 2 May, and effectively the last of these was at 1549. He postponed listening to this until around 2015, at which point he turned off his mobile. He took just one incoming call at 1224 on 3 May, then his mobile fell silent again until 2314. Since he didn’t make a single outgoing call during that period, and used voicemail to eliminate any possibility of identification of his callers, we can say that his period of silence (compare the figure with Murat’s) was of 31h 25m.
This is inexplicable unless you come to the conclusion that GM and RM were in cahoots, and the silence was akin to the military golden rule, of communications silence to avoid any possibility of compromise before the action kicks off.
I then consider in more detail those 12 voicemail messages which GM received on 2 May. The PJ never found out who they came from, but by any standards it was a busy eight hours for Gerry, no doubt with pen and paper in hand to take down detailed instructions and timings. As I’ve said, he postponed listening to the last two for some reason. KM’s claim that Gerry was so busy at work that he had to keep in touch with his department, is given the lie by the fact that he didn’t actually speak to anybody, and never responded with a single outgoing call.
Putting all of this together, I’m satisfied that the tragic event had not only taken place by 0800 on 2 May, but that sufficient time had passed between the event and 0800 on 2 May for Gerry to start to receive detailed plans beginning at that time.
So theoretically, death around 2345 on 1 May is still possible, although we have no indication of frantic phone communications during that night as we would expect. Which leads us neatly to those six contacts (texts or calls?) on KM’s mobile from 2216 – 2228 on that evening. (According to Mrs Fenn’s account, the crying of Madeleine started at 2230).
Might that really be the time of the tragedy? I doubt it. Look at it this way: wouldn’t we have expected some normal, “chatty” contact between the two McCanns and their Tapas chums, or with family, on 1 May and 30 April? We have absolutely none. 48 hours without mobile contact. I believe that represents 48 hours during which something very concealed was going on. And then suddenly Kate has to make six contacts in 12 minutes just before the long period when, according to Mrs Fenn , Maddie was crying. I don’t believe there is any logic which points to the tragic event happening at that time.

So I return to investigate the calls made by RM’s mobile, and in a 14 minute period between 2200 and 2214 I find six texts apparently being transmitted between his mobile and Michaela Walczuch’s. Now, as an inveterate ex-communications-intelligence jobsworth, I look at those bursts of six messages beginning at 2200 and ending at 2228 and I say “something fishy’s going on here.”
Putting this together with RM’s and Gerry’s coinciding 31-hour silences of the following day, I believe that Murat’s and Walczuch’s mobiles were being used to transmit stuff which was vital to the cover-up of a tragedy which had happened before 2200 on 1 May.
Going back still further, it can be noted that RM booked his flight on 30 April, that the same day was highlighted by phone communications between Jenny Murat and Exeter, and that he flew to Faro and arrived at PdL around 1130 on 1 May. And we should add to the mix an unexplained call to Jane Tanner at the ungodly hour of 0415 on 29 April.

That’s about 600 pages of the phone thread condensed into little more than one page"

russiandoll wrote: qoute aiyoyo
"Surely a productive and efficient police force must know that the crucial evidence is to be found within 5 to at most 20 % of the documents, have those analyzed first, and from there if necessary expand to look at a wider scope, and not waste time looking at every thing in chronological order just for the sake of it. "
The review has been ongoing without the public being updated on its progress or what has been investigated and when. How do we know that things are being looked at in chronological order? Same as we do not know whether or not any of the holiday group have been questioned.
I remember reading this about the review

It is understood that key areas being investigated by Scotland Yard – include analysis of a huge amount of mobile phone cell site evidence that was gathered but never analysed. That evidence could help to trace any suspects who were around the resort.
this mobile phone activity will presumably include that of the holiday group; as dodgy as the creche records imo.

That's my point. Since we weren't told what has or has not been investigated, or in what order for that matter, then we can't assume they still have a long way to go.

We don't know what their 25% comprises. It could well be the completed 25% then and whatever % now already took in the crucial and potential productive bits they need to know ie statements, dogs forensics, labs forensics, phones forensics, sightings, and all that matters and rest are just inconsequential peripherals.

Bear in mind the Yard didn't start from zero since UK Police were co-investigators up until the Mccanns fled home and Brit Coppers followed not far behind them. For a start, they already had a fairly substantial files in their possession in English version without need for translation :-
Mccanns and chums interviews in PDL and Rog interviews
Other witnesses statements given in UK
Birmingham FSS Reports
Martin Grime Dogs Forensics Reports
Phone forensics
Not forgetting data sent by Kiko and TB were all in English as well.

It could well be the METS announced decision is IT. They must be ready to wind down hence the latest news hinting at the end.

I cant see how they can U-turn on their earlier statement that " Maddie may be alive or sadly she may be dead" to now suddenly say her parents need to be recalled for investigations without been seen as a bungling lot of sandwich munchers. It's not going to happen IMO.

How they arrived at that conclusion despite evidence pointing away from abduction is a complete mystery.

Aiyoyo wrote:
How they arrived at that conclusion despite evidence pointing away from abduction is a complete mystery.
unquote

Tut, tut! Aiyoyo - under no circumstances may you use those words!

Short piece from mccannfiles by Dr Martin Roberts....



EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
26 August 2012


GIVE THEM AN INCH...


"There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is." (Bernard Hogan-Howe - Metropolitan Police Commissioner).

So what exactly is the 'likely outcome,' and why the need for a 'Government' decision?

The following is reported verbatim at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Child Abduction & Murder Facts & Statistics

1. Yearly around 750,000 children are reported missing in the United States, around 2,000 every day.

2. Most of these are runaways or kids taken by a family member.

3. Around 100 children are abducted and murdered in the U.S. each year. Around 60% of all child-murder abductions are at the hands of someone the child knows, not a stranger.

4. In around 75% of all murder-abductions, the child is believed to be dead within 3-6 hours of the abduction.

5. Nearly all murdered children are killed by a family member, most often a parent.

6. Most murdered children are not killed by pedophiles (sic) or sex-offenders, but by physical abusers, drug addicts, drug dealers, alcoholics, sadists (those who kill for thrill), and lain old otherwise ordinary people.

7. For every successful stranger abduction, there are many more failed attempts. It's hard to know the exact number, as many cases are disregarded by parents and never reported, and record keeping is spotty at best. But based on our own monitoring of news reports, we would estimate around 20 failed attempts for every successful abduction. So while only around 100 children are kidnapped and murdered each year (most by friends and family), countless others are tested! Make sure your child is prepared.

8. Women are the culprits in 68% of all child abduction cases worldwide.

9. Seven in ten children will walk away with a stranger despite being warned, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. This is because merely telling kids "don't talk to strangers" isn't enough. They need more substantial training in stranger danger.

References:

1. U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, 2007
2. Ibid
3. Ibid
4. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
5. Collins, K.A., Nichols, C.A. (1999) "A decade of pediatric homicide: a retrospective study at the Medical University of South Carolina." American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology, 20, 169-172
6. Global Children’s Fund (2009) Child Risk, Castle Rock, Co: GCF Publishing
7. GCF
8. The Economist, "Money in Misery," 2-7-09, p. 21
9. NCMEC

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

It is also possible that SY have in effect been behaving in the same way as TM when they requested holiday makers to send in their photo's. It was a way of finding out what evidence may be held by anyone who was in the resort at that time.

It's possible that Redwood now thinks he has seen all the evidence held by individuals who have interest in this case and it poses no threat. So the request to Cameron may mean the case can be closed with no further action.

It all depends on whether this was a Review or a whitewash IMO.

Or possible, just possibly --

"You will not apply my precept," he said, shaking his head. "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? We know that he did not come through the door, the window, or the chimney. We also know that he could not have been concealed in the room, as there is no concealment possible. When, then, did he come?" The Sign of The Four. Conan Doyle

Surprisingly close to the present situation.
Has Redwood been eliminating the impossible, to prove that it was impossible, so that finally . . .
Blacksmith' article comes to a similar conclusion

I have a problem with that.

If Redwood had eliminated the impossible to prove that it was impossible, how to explain his public statement which is in total contradiction.

I can't understand why Redwood saw the need to make that premature announcement as no one was expecting anything. Not until the end of the review anyway if any announcement is going to be due.

Even if the Yard hasn't produced a single suspect or a piece of evidence to support abduction, Blacksmith may be wrong to say the cupboard is empty, because the Yard did claim there were looking at 196 significant leads and even came up with an age progression image of Maddie. This alone is enough for team mccanns put in front of the judges, knowing how adept the mccanns are at selecting words out of report or out of statement to suit their purpose.

a reminder of A Redwood on Panorama :

“We are here in terms of seeking to bring closure to the case. That would be the ultimate objective and is our ultimate objective.”

Richard Bilton: “What does that mean?”

DCI Redwood: “Well closure means establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann.”

RB: “Solving it?”

DCI Redwood: “Yes, solving it, of course.”

imo Redwood was between a rock and a hard place in this interview. In this interwiew as well as on his Daybreak interview he chose not to elaborate and only did so when pushed and then when asked straight if he thought Madeleine was alive he tied himself up in knots, unable to answer coherently why he has said yes. To have said no would have meant another question......."what has made you conclude that she is not alive? "
He states the obvious, which sounds ridiculous....she could be alive or sadly dead. These 2 states could be a result of various scenarios, including or excluding abduction as alleged by the parents.

Closure then means solving the case, establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann..
To RB's "solving it ?", he does not reply with any of the following ,replies he could have made, had he been accepting the McCann story :

We need to discover who abducted Madeleine McCann. There is a chance she is alive and being cared for as part of a family. The person witnessed by the McCann's friend, who we believe is the abductor, might have meant Madeleine no harm.

On the other hand if evidence points to a predator meaning to harm her, we will sadly will have to conclude that she is no longer alive. This will of course be dreadful news for her parents, but it will draw a line and enable them to move on.

He at no time stated anything about establsihing what happened to her after her abduction, where she was taken after her abduction, who her abductor was and why her abductor took her.
He stated simply " establishing what happened to Madeleine McCann". She could be alive or dead.
This includes abduction ,followed or not followed by murder.
Madeleine being alive after an arranged " abduction" by persons known to her parents who for whatever reason are looking after the child who is known to be safe and well, and the entire story is a hoax for financial gain.
Madeleine McCann either had a fatal accident or was deliberately killed and the alleged abduction was a cover for what had happened.
He never referred once to the McCanns by their first names, unlike tv and radio interviewers who always do so. He acted professionally.

In his Daybreak interview, he never spoke about the review team having anything to do with the release of the age progressed photo, although it was stated to be the case by the interviewer :

It’s a critically important stage for us, if you look at the image, you will see that it has great resemblance to a school photograph, this is the sort of image that every parent proudly presents – on their, on their dining room um you know, you know, your dining room table This image has been carefully prepared by a United Kingdom forensic specialist in human identification and…and art and - close collaboration with Mr and Mrs McCann who agree that this is a close - close resemblance to their, to their daughter - and my appeal to the public today is clear - look at the image carefully please -

he gets tied up in knots here......not surprising as he has mentioned a dining table as being the usual place to display this type of photograph. I have never seen any photographs on a dining table, but plenty on window sills, sideboards and display cabinets.
Did the Met commission this image? Surely not, if they were giving equal weight to Madeleine being alive as being dead, this would have been released as soon as the review began, to aid the search. He did not say " this image was prepared for us/ the review team .." The news media have stated as a fact that is the case. Redwood did not make any allusion to having commissioned this image, also did not deny or confirm the assumptions made by the media.

I wonder if SY have reached a conclusion that is unsatisfactory to the politicians and fawning celebrities who have supported the abduction theory throughout? They may possibly have reached an impasse and their investigation may now have to concentrate on the night of May 3rd and the individuals involved. Lack of money to continue is as good an excuse as any, to shelve their findings before going down that road. In these times of austerity, the public are unlikely to cry out for further investment in what appears to be a hopeless case.

I wonder if the McCanns will now revert to their Petition for a review and the 100,000 signatures they were expecting, in order to prevent the Review from closing? Now surely, is the time for them to demand answers? The review has failed to find in its objective, to discover what has happened to Maddie, and it has also failed to clear the McCanns of any involvement.

Meanwhile, I believe, the Portuguese review continues, hopefully without interference from politicians and media magnates. The Portuguese have been insulted by this case, on so many levels. The campaign to blame the police and criticise the locals began on the night the child vanished. 'No-one is helping us' was TM's mantra, despite the fact that extra police were drafted in and local people were out in force, searching every inch of the area and turning every stone to find the lost child.

What are the chances that the Portuguese will shrink away from publishing their findings?

russiandoll wrote: a reminder of A Redwood on Panorama :

“We are here in terms of seeking to bring closure to the case. That would be the ultimate objective and is our ultimate objective.”

Richard Bilton: “What does that mean?”

DCI Redwood: “Well closure means establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann.”

RB: “Solving it?”

DCI Redwood: “Yes, solving it, of course.”

imo Redwood was between a rock and a hard place in this interview. In this interwiew as well as on his Daybreak interview he chose not to elaborate and only did so when pushed and then when asked straight if he thought Madeleine was alive he tied himself up in knots, unable to answer coherently why he has said yes. To have said no would have meant another question......."what has made you conclude that she is not alive? "
He states the obvious, which sounds ridiculous....she could be alive or sadly dead. These 2 states could be a result of various scenarios, including or excluding abduction as alleged by the parents.

Closure then means solving the case, establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann..
To RB's "solving it ?", he does not reply with any of the following ,replies he could have made, had he been accepting the McCann story :

We need to discover who abducted Madeleine McCann. There is a chance she is alive and being cared for as part of a family. The person witnessed by the McCann's friend, who we believe is the abductor, might have meant Madeleine no harm.

On the other hand if evidence points to a predator meaning to harm her, we will sadly will have to conclude that she is no longer alive. This will of course be dreadful news for her parents, but it will draw a line and enable them to move on.

He at no time stated anything about establsihing what happened to her after her abduction, where she was taken after her abduction, who her abductor was and why her abductor took her.
He stated simply " establishing what happened to Madeleine McCann". She could be alive or dead.
This includes abduction ,followed or not followed by murder.
Madeleine being alive after an arranged " abduction" by persons known to her parents who for whatever reason are looking after the child who is known to be safe and well, and the entire story is a hoax for financial gain.
Madeleine McCann either had a fatal accident or was deliberately killed and the alleged abduction was a cover for what had happened.
He never referred once to the McCanns by their first names, unlike tv and radio interviewers who always do so. He acted professionally.

In his Daybreak interview, he never spoke about the review team having anything to do with the release of the age progressed photo, although it was stated to be the case by the interviewer :

It’s a critically important stage for us, if you look at the image, you will see that it has great resemblance to a school photograph, this is the sort of image that every parent proudly presents – on their, on their dining room um you know, you know, your dining room table This image has been carefully prepared by a United Kingdom forensic specialist in human identification and…and art and - close collaboration with Mr and Mrs McCann who agree that this is a close - close resemblance to their, to their daughter - and my appeal to the public today is clear - look at the image carefully please -

he gets tied up in knots here......not surprising as he has mentioned a dining table as being the usual place to display this type of photograph. I have never seen any photographs on a dining table, but plenty on window sills, sideboards and display cabinets.
Did the Met commission this image? Surely not, if they were giving equal weight to Madeleine being alive as being dead, this would have been released as soon as the review began, to aid the search. He did not say " this image was prepared for us/ the review team .." The news media have stated as a fact that is the case. Redwood did not make any allusion to having commissioned this image, also did not deny or confirm the assumptions made by the media.

Its doubtful Redwood will come out of this with much credibility. Almost £3m for the most asinine police statement in history. Madeleine is alive or dead.

These near retirement police officers, will end their careers with failure writ large on their lifetime's work. I almost pity them.

Assuming the review concludes that Maddie was abducted, that may be good news for the McCanns in UK courts but where does it leave them in their case against Amaral or others like him who mention the case unfavourably in books and other media? I doubt Redwood will testify as one of their prosecution witnesses or allow one of his officers to do so (cf. Jose de Freitas).

ShuBob wrote:Assuming the review concludes that Maddie was abducted, that may be good news for the McCanns in UK courts but where does it leave them in their case against Amaral or others like him who mention the case unfavourably in books and other media? I doubt Redwood will testify as one of their prosecution witnesses or allow one of his officers to do so (cf. Jose de Freitas).

I doubt if the review will conclude that Maddie was abducted because they would have to make a case for that based on the evidence (and there isn't any evidence of an abduction).

Perhaps the review finale will be like Redwood's comment that she could be alive or dead - there may have been an abduction, but then again there may not have been; it is all really a mystery (to use use a very bad word!).

pauline wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Assuming the review concludes that Maddie was abducted, that may be good news for the McCanns in UK courts but where does it leave them in their case against Amaral or others like him who mention the case unfavourably in books and other media? I doubt Redwood will testify as one of their prosecution witnesses or allow one of his officers to do so (cf. Jose de Freitas).

I doubt if the review will conclude that Maddie was abducted because they would have to make a case for that based on the evidence (and there isn't any evidence of an abduction).

Perhaps the review finale will be like Redwood's comment that she could be alive or dead - there may have been an abduction, but then again there may not have been; it is all really a mystery (to use use a very bad word!).

Indeed but what if? I never expected Redwood to come out and make the comments he made but he did without challenge. So what if they conclude Maddie was abducted? What good will that be to the McCanns except perhaps in the UK courts?

russiandoll wrote: a reminder of A Redwood on Panorama :

“We are here in terms of seeking to bring closure to the case. That would be the ultimate objective and is our ultimate objective.”

Richard Bilton: “What does that mean?”

DCI Redwood: “Well closure means establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann.”

RB: “Solving it?”

DCI Redwood: “Yes, solving it, of course.”

imo Redwood was between a rock and a hard place in this interview. In this interwiew as well as on his Daybreak interview he chose not to elaborate and only did so when pushed and then when asked straight if he thought Madeleine was alive he tied himself up in knots, unable to answer coherently why he has said yes. To have said no would have meant another question......."what has made you conclude that she is not alive? "
He states the obvious, which sounds ridiculous....she could be alive or sadly dead. These 2 states could be a result of various scenarios, including or excluding abduction as alleged by the parents.

Closure then means solving the case, establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann..
To RB's "solving it ?", he does not reply with any of the following ,replies he could have made, had he been accepting the McCann story :

We need to discover who abducted Madeleine McCann. There is a chance she is alive and being cared for as part of a family. The person witnessed by the McCann's friend, who we believe is the abductor, might have meant Madeleine no harm.

On the other hand if evidence points to a predator meaning to harm her, we will sadly will have to conclude that she is no longer alive. This will of course be dreadful news for her parents, but it will draw a line and enable them to move on.

He at no time stated anything about establsihing what happened to her after her abduction, where she was taken after her abduction, who her abductor was and why her abductor took her.
He stated simply " establishing what happened to Madeleine McCann". She could be alive or dead.
This includes abduction ,followed or not followed by murder.
Madeleine being alive after an arranged " abduction" by persons known to her parents who for whatever reason are looking after the child who is known to be safe and well, and the entire story is a hoax for financial gain.
Madeleine McCann either had a fatal accident or was deliberately killed and the alleged abduction was a cover for what had happened.
He never referred once to the McCanns by their first names, unlike tv and radio interviewers who always do so. He acted professionally.

In his Daybreak interview, he never spoke about the review team having anything to do with the release of the age progressed photo, although it was stated to be the case by the interviewer :

It’s a critically important stage for us, if you look at the image, you will see that it has great resemblance to a school photograph, this is the sort of image that every parent proudly presents – on their, on their dining room um you know, you know, your dining room table This image has been carefully prepared by a United Kingdom forensic specialist in human identification and…and art and - close collaboration with Mr and Mrs McCann who agree that this is a close - close resemblance to their, to their daughter - and my appeal to the public today is clear - look at the image carefully please -

he gets tied up in knots here......not surprising as he has mentioned a dining table as being the usual place to display this type of photograph. I have never seen any photographs on a dining table, but plenty on window sills, sideboards and display cabinets.
Did the Met commission this image? Surely not, if they were giving equal weight to Madeleine being alive as being dead, this would have been released as soon as the review began, to aid the search. He did not say " this image was prepared for us/ the review team .." The news media have stated as a fact that is the case. Redwood did not make any allusion to having commissioned this image, also did not deny or confirm the assumptions made by the media.

Redwood was in a very difficult position is evidenced by his ambiguous reply to questions.
So he didn't allude to the Yard having commissioned the image, and maybe it wasn't the Yard who told the media about 196 significant unexplored leads, but neither is there a plausible reason for his premature proclamation.

Did he do it of his own accord or under pressure? If so, from who? Whose line was he toeing?

As if the banal proclamation wasn't enough he even followed that up by subjecting himself to studio sofa sit in interview.
Was it just for satisfaction of a few minutes glory of being honored to head the mccanns' review or something else?

If the Review team has reached an impasse then the mccanns' claim of bungling foreign coppers isn't going to hold water, and there will be red faces all over.

It will be interesting to see if the McCanns campaign to keep the review open.

My guess is that they will let it close, and then come out with the "poor us, send us yer munney" line.

Yes, I have a horrible image of the saintly pair putting on a show which would bring tears to the eyes of a statue.

Please, please help us to top up our pension fund - no, sorry, to keep looking for our daughter. We hate to ask but we're desperate.

Jean wrote:Yes, I have a horrible image of the saintly pair putting on a show which would bring tears to the eyes of a statue.

Please, please help us to top up our pension fund - no, sorry, to keep looking for our daughter. We hate to ask but we're desperate.

That won't wash with the general public imo. They've had so much money thrown at them and judging by the fact that comments were not allowed on the latest news item about the millions that have already been spent, it's not likely that it will come rolling in. The last few times I checked the comments a lot were negative. Not so many bleeding hearts.

The mcCanns are going to have to face it, they're boring.

ShuBob wrote:

Indeed but what if? I never expected Redwood to come out and make the comments he made but he did without challenge. So what if they conclude Maddie was abducted? What good will that be to the McCanns except perhaps in the UK courts?

Indeed ! What if this is the reason why CR have allowed time to run on regardingTB?

Were they waiting for someone to be in the right place, perhaps moved into place, or perhaps were not "where they should be" to enable events to run to allow for the Review to conclude with a favourable result?

A tragic piece in the Daily Mail today about Ruth Ellis - the last woman to be hung in the UK.

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

Look at how keen the police were to secure a conviction. Conviction = success = promotion.

So why in the Mccann case would the police not wish to secure a conviction? Political pressure ? Masonic links? Not on the whole review team surely? No - they are nearing the end of the review where a political / DPP decision has to be taken. Can we realistically convict? Probably not so kick it into the long grass for the moment.

There is no conspracy IMO at the Met. Just the knowledge that without a body, confession etc etc