Re: Sunday Express - ACCEPTED VERSION OF EVENTS IS WRONG and DAILYSTAR - WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH

by russiandoll on 14.10.13 17:43

Pros in meltdown on twitter. Martin Smith now being vilified. Started off with......Smith might have got the time he saw the man wrong.
NO, REDWOOD STATES 10 PM.

Then....Smith got a call next day from a family member in Ireland and learnt that there was a girl missing; realised he might have seen Maddie. Why not go to police?

Then....he did go to police in Portugal but Amaral only got interested when he thought he could use the sighting against Gerry.

Amaral could have acted but sat on crucial info for months.

THEY ARE TRULY NUTS.

by worriedmum on 14.10.13 17:45

David Cameron on BBC radio calling it a 'disappearance' and Andy Redwood talking about 'the events of the evening of 3rd May', not the 'abduction'.

by russiandoll on 14.10.13 17:45

@mouse wrote:Another reason to stay in the glass half empty camp - (believe me I want to be opening a bottle to celebrate progress (not to celebrate the loss of a little girl you understand), is - why of all the weeks and months working on this case do SY decide to come up with this announcement, to air the crimewatch program the very moment Mr Amaral's case is about to reach a significant conclusion. If they were on side/working with the Portuguese surely they would wait until this was over, and then make their announcements.

Believe me I want be positive, but after this many years....I still remember Clarrie's pretendy cop statement years ago, and it feels a bit like SY are now actually doing the same...setting up phonelines for info, just like before. Why don't they, if they are expecting real new evidence to come in - release a phone no for the portuguese police on Crimewatch???? It feels like they are just trying to find other possible suspects/scenarios to investigate and throw more fog and confusion to what is already a complete utter mess - statement wise.

THEY ARE COPS. AMARAL WAS A COP. MAYBE THEY AGREE WITH HIS FINDINGS. JT sighting binned. Smith sighting the focus.

MAYBE THE TIMING RE THE TRIAL WILL HELP AMARAL.

by russiandoll on 14.10.13 17:47

@endgame wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:endgame .

Can you please give a reason for why he would go these lengths to cover for the Mcs?
Because either that's his brief - he was specifically asked to investigate an abduction in a review that can be traced right back to the McCanns themselves - or he's a complete idiot or he genuinely believes this to be the case for some reason known only to himself. The last two are not mutually exclusive. Personally I hover somewhere between reasons 1 and 2 but I try to keep an open mind as anything is possible.

OK...why would he be given that brief ? Why would he believe in a scenario which is not congruent with the evidence?

by MoonGoddess on 14.10.13 17:47

@nobodythereeither wrote:
@tiny wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:quote I'm in your camp on this mouse. Redwood is most likely, as he has already practically said, to present an alternative view of events which makes an abduction credible

how can he change a shed load of evidence in the statements to suit a new version? it would be perverting the course of justice and creating huge problems with Portugal..and Leicester police. Volumes of detailed statements all conveniently rubbished....for what ?
Im with you on this, Redwood cannot change any think ,it would be perverting the course of justice as I said on another thread

As I said earlier, yes I think he can. He may have new very credible witnesses or someone has asked to change their original statement. In which case that would override a previous statement, but of course you would have to ask why the change. It's the only way I can see of changing anything from the original story we have heard for the last 6+ years...all imo.
the only way he can change things IF some one has grassed
I agree, and I think it must surely be Jane Tanner?

I think she was duped into helping out a mate.... no one expected it to grow into the monster that it has, including some of that Tapas crew - I think a few of them was duped

by Hicks on 14.10.13 17:48

The McCann's have had protection from the very beginning, there can be no doubt about that. Mr Amaral came across this 'interference' all the way through his investigation.
What I am saying is, I don't believe that a mere Detective Chief Inspector with the MET will be able to bring down those responsible. I'm sorry to be so negative, but I don't hold out any hope for the truth to ever be told. There will be continued silence regarding the evidence from the dogs. censored

Of course....I shall be very happy if I am proved wrong.
Guess we will just have to wait and see.

by MoonGoddess on 14.10.13 17:49

@russiandoll wrote:Pros in meltdown on twitter. Martin Smith now being vilified. Started off with......Smith might have got the time he saw the man wrong.
NO, REDWOOD STATES 10 PM.

Then....Smith got a call next day from a family member in Ireland and learnt that there was a girl missing; realised he might have seen Maddie. Why not go to police?

Then....he did go to police in Portugal but Amaral only got interested when he thought he could use the sighting against Gerry.

Amaral could have acted but sat on crucial info for months.

THEY ARE TRULY NUTS.

or paid keyboard monkeys!.... Good Luck on the sinking ship you morons

by susible on 14.10.13 17:50

@mouse wrote:Another reason to stay in the glass half empty camp - (believe me I want to be opening a bottle to celebrate progress (not to celebrate the loss of a little girl you understand), is - why of all the weeks and months working on this case do SY decide to come up with this announcement, to air the crimewatch program the very moment Mr Amaral's case is about to reach a significant conclusion. If they were on side/working with the Portuguese surely they would wait until this was over, and then make their announcements.

Believe me I want be positive, but after this many years....I still remember Clarrie's pretendy cop statement years ago, and it feels a bit like SY are now actually doing the same...setting up phonelines for info, just like before. Why don't they, if they are expecting real new evidence to come in - release a phone no for the portuguese police on Crimewatch???? It feels like they are just trying to find other possible suspects/scenarios to investigate and throw more fog and confusion to what is already a complete utter mess - statement wise.

But this whole event goes in Snr Amaral's favour, because it puts an end to the Mc's proclamations that the book harmed the search!

Better still, the Mc's accused Snr Amaral's book as being full of lies, when in fact, Redwood seems to be saying now that it is the McCanns and their friends whose statements (and Kate's subsequent book) are full of lies...

No, I remain optimistic, because whatever the outcome of tonight's crimewatch, Redwood's statements have opened a veritable Pandora's box

by Guest on 14.10.13 17:51

@russiandoll wrote:Pros in meltdown on twitter. Martin Smith now being vilified. Started off with......Smith might have got the time he saw the man wrong.
NO, REDWOOD STATES 10 PM.

Then....Smith got a call next day from a family member in Ireland and learnt that there was a girl missing; realised he might have seen Maddie. Why not go to police?

Then....he did go to police in Portugal but Amaral only got interested when he thought he could use the sighting against Gerry.

Amaral could have acted but sat on crucial info for months.

THEY ARE TRULY NUTS.

Jayelles is determined to go down in a blaze of glory isn't she ppcorn

Anyone spotted Greenink?

by MoonGoddess on 14.10.13 17:52

@Hicks wrote:The McCann's have had protection from the very beginning, there can be no doubt about that. Mr Amaral came across this 'interference' all the way through his investigation.
What I am saying is, I don't believe that a mere Detective Chief Inspector with the MET will be able to bring down those responsible. I'm sorry to be so negative, but I don't hold out any hope for the truth to ever be told. There will be continued silence regarding the evidence from the dogs.

Of course....I shall be very happy if I am proved wrong.
Guess we will just have to wait and see.

We all know this isn't just about what happened to Madeleine that night, I think this 6 million has been invested to uncover something BIG... I've never been into politics but at the end of the day, IF this is a 'sting' SY and DC come out smelling of roses....

I am hoping it's a sting

by Newintown on 14.10.13 17:52

@russiandoll wrote:Pros in meltdown on twitter. Martin Smith now being vilified. Started off with......Smith might have got the time he saw the man wrong.
NO, REDWOOD STATES 10 PM.

Then....Smith got a call next day from a family member in Ireland and learnt that there was a girl missing; realised he might have seen Maddie. Why not go to police?

Then....he did go to police in Portugal but Amaral only got interested when he thought he could use the sighting against Gerry.

Amaral could have acted but sat on crucial info for months.

THEY ARE TRULY NUTS.

I was thinking about Martin Smith earlier after reading all the posts regarding the e-fit. He has put his head above the parapet for Madeleine, more than the McCanns, their Tapas friends or the McCanns' obnoxious supporters have done. It couldn't have been easy for him to pick up the phone and talk to the police, knowing he may be opening a can of worms.

If the family have got pets of any kind, I really hope they keep a close eye on them.

by sweetex on 14.10.13 17:56

Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?

by aquila on 14.10.13 18:01

@MoonGoddess wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:
@tiny wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:quote I'm in your camp on this mouse. Redwood is most likely, as he has already practically said, to present an alternative view of events which makes an abduction credible

how can he change a shed load of evidence in the statements to suit a new version? it would be perverting the course of justice and creating huge problems with Portugal..and Leicester police. Volumes of detailed statements all conveniently rubbished....for what ?
Im with you on this, Redwood cannot change any think ,it would be perverting the course of justice as I said on another thread

As I said earlier, yes I think he can. He may have new very credible witnesses or someone has asked to change their original statement. In which case that would override a previous statement, but of course you would have to ask why the change. It's the only way I can see of changing anything from the original story we have heard for the last 6+ years...all imo.
the only way he can change things IF some one has grassed
I agree, and I think it must surely be Jane Tanner?
I think she was duped into helping out a mate.... no one expected it to grow into the monster that it has, including some of that Tapas crew - I think a few of them was duped

All seven of the Tapas crew donated to Gerry's triathlon event.

http://www.justgiving.com/Gerry-McCann1

by susible on 14.10.13 18:02

@Hicks wrote:The McCann's have had protection from the very beginning, there can be no doubt about that. Mr Amaral came across this 'interference' all the way through his investigation.
What I am saying is, I don't believe that a mere Detective Chief Inspector with the MET will be able to bring down those responsible. I'm sorry to be so negative, but I don't hold out any hope for the truth to ever be told. There will be continued silence regarding the evidence from the dogs.

Of course....I shall be very happy if I am proved wrong.
Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Who exactly is being protected? I'm sorry but I've never agreed with all of this cover up/protection baloney, if it was that much of a cover up, we would never have heard of the McCanns at all.

And lets face it, after 6 years not one person has come up with anything credible in terms of this all powerful person (who doesn't seemingly have much power at all) and without it descending into a farce with a cast of thousands, there really is no reason for anyone to cover up the death of a child, except the parents themselves, who in my opinion, reacted to a situation in a panic to protect themselves and they had a couple of lucky breaks, i.e. the media took it on with great gusto and gormless Gordon Brown initially thought it would be a good thing to hitch his wagon to in an effort to show his "caring side" He ditched them pretty damn quickly though, but by that time the Mc's had amassed considerable wealth with which to hire expensive libel lawyers to shut anyone up who dared to question their story.

The McCanns should just have shut up when they were released from their arguido status, but they couldn't let it go, nothing less than total exoneration was going to do it for them, but that was never going to happen as there was just too much evidence against them.

And now we have Redwood saying that this has gone on for far too long, and they want a conclusion, so it seems quite the opposite, and who can forget how they insulted David Cameron, so I'm quite sure that this is the ideal opportunity to shut the McCanns up for once and for all imo

by mouse on 14.10.13 18:04

@russiandoll wrote:
@mouse wrote:Another reason to stay in the glass half empty camp - (believe me I want to be opening a bottle to celebrate progress (not to celebrate the loss of a little girl you understand), is - why of all the weeks and months working on this case do SY decide to come up with this announcement, to air the crimewatch program the very moment Mr Amaral's case is about to reach a significant conclusion. If they were on side/working with the Portuguese surely they would wait until this was over, and then make their announcements.

Believe me I want be positive, but after this many years....I still remember Clarrie's pretendy cop statement years ago, and it feels a bit like SY are now actually doing the same...setting up phonelines for info, just like before. Why don't they, if they are expecting real new evidence to come in - release a phone no for the portuguese police on Crimewatch???? It feels like they are just trying to find other possible suspects/scenarios to investigate and throw more fog and confusion to what is already a complete utter mess - statement wise.
THEY ARE COPS. AMARAL WAS A COP. MAYBE THEY AGREE WITH HIS FINDINGS. JT sighting binned. Smith sighting the focus.

MAYBE THE TIMING RE THE TRIAL WILL HELP AMARAL.

Sorry - Its only my opinion. I know they're cops. And I'm not the only one that is pessimistic. Its just that we've been here so many times. Believe me I want to believe there is progress, but it's just my opinion, I'm open to changing it, but surely there's not need to shout

by Ayniia on 14.10.13 18:05

@sweetex wrote:Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?

Please can anyone help us with this? And what time it starts, 8 or 9?

by Wahrheit on 14.10.13 18:05

The mood of the forum seems to have swung in the direction of optimism. To my veteran and cynical eye The Man intends to carry on with the 3 monkeys act as regards the saintly couple. Because of the well-publicised pink-tinged BS in the years preceding tonights reenactment, they are obligated to go forward with a very risky strategy: that of switching attention to the Smith sighting as proof of abduction knowing full well that the world knows that Smith thinks he saw Gerry but, they will brazenly ignore any and all links that put McCann in the frame. I'm guessing they will say he has a watertight alibi - even though 2 tapas employees (Batista and the Russian - Svetlana?) suggest he was away from the table from 21.30 till just before Kate went to do her "check".

If, on the other hand, this is a masterful sting etc, I will raise my hat. But, till then I won't raise my hopes.

by endgame on 14.10.13 18:06

@russiandoll wrote:
@endgame wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:endgame .

Can you please give a reason for why he would go these lengths to cover for the Mcs?
Because either that's his brief - he was specifically asked to investigate an abduction in a review that can be traced right back to the McCanns themselves - or he's a complete idiot or he genuinely believes this to be the case for some reason known only to himself. The last two are not mutually exclusive. Personally I hover somewhere between reasons 1 and 2 but I try to keep an open mind as anything is possible.
OK...why would he be given that brief ? Why would he believe in a scenario which is not congruent with the evidence?

But Russiandoll you know that was the brief - to review the case as though the abduction had taken place in England. This is not a normal Met Police investigation. They have not originated this investigation nor are they even funding it. Its origins were Mccanns hand in glove with Rebekah Brooks. Rebekah Brooks lobbies her friend the Prime Minister. Sun newspaper threatens Theresa May. Theresa May asks Met to conduct review which she will fund. They are accountable to and funded by politicians.This is unprecedented and puts all kinds of strain on the investigation itself. It is not the case that someone has reported a crime to the Met and they are following their normal procedures to solve the crime wherever it may lead them. British police had six years to decide they themselves wished to investigate and said not a word.

This is just a view and like many many views on the forum it is largely surmise but its not beyond belief because there are numerous examples all over the place of British police and politicians covering up evidence, creating evidence, lying and selectively choosing facts to support their case. I hope I'm wrong and Andy Redwood turns to be a good old fashioned genuine copper just doing his job and interested only in discovering the truth but I've yet to be convinced that is the case.

by Mélusine on 14.10.13 18:07

@sweetex wrote:Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?

I second this.

Also not living in the UK.

by Truthandjustice on 14.10.13 18:08

@Ayniia wrote:
@sweetex wrote:Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?
Please can anyone help us with this? And what time it starts, 8 or 9?

Frances ‏[ltr]@foxylady93[/ltr]2h
If you cannot access BBC for crimewatch tonight .join us here and it will be shown at 9pm #McCann https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/ …

Retweeted by Rosalinda V. Hutton

Saw this earlier. Go to her twitter for full link, think i might have chopped it off in cut and paste. Hope it helps

by Dr What on 14.10.13 18:08

I suppose even if one or both of the McCanns have to face the consequences, perhaps they have calculated that the £3 million in the 'bank' will not only pay for anything that their close and wider family need, but the majority of it will still be there as and when they will be in a position to enjoy it once they have served any sentence.Lose their jobs, but more than enough to start a new life somewhere.

by Newintown on 14.10.13 18:09

@Ayniia wrote:
@sweetex wrote:Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?
Please can anyone help us with this? And what time it starts, 8 or 9?

It's BBC1 from 9 pm to 10 pm (UK time) with an update after the 10 pm news at 10.35 pm.

by susible on 14.10.13 18:10

@Ayniia wrote:
@sweetex wrote:Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?
Please can anyone help us with this? And what time it starts, 8 or 9?

9.00pm BBC1

by MoonGoddess on 14.10.13 18:10

@aquila wrote:
@MoonGoddess wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:
@tiny wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:quote I'm in your camp on this mouse. Redwood is most likely, as he has already practically said, to present an alternative view of events which makes an abduction credible

how can he change a shed load of evidence in the statements to suit a new version? it would be perverting the course of justice and creating huge problems with Portugal..and Leicester police. Volumes of detailed statements all conveniently rubbished....for what ?
Im with you on this, Redwood cannot change any think ,it would be perverting the course of justice as I said on another thread

As I said earlier, yes I think he can. He may have new very credible witnesses or someone has asked to change their original statement. In which case that would override a previous statement, but of course you would have to ask why the change. It's the only way I can see of changing anything from the original story we have heard for the last 6+ years...all imo.
the only way he can change things IF some one has grassed
I agree, and I think it must surely be Jane Tanner?
I think she was duped into helping out a mate.... no one expected it to grow into the monster that it has, including some of that Tapas crew - I think a few of them was duped
All seven of the Tapas crew donated to Gerry's triathlon event.

http://www.justgiving.com/Gerry-McCann1

mmm and so supportive too! Interesting as it quite recent.... thanks x

by sweetex on 14.10.13 18:12

@Truthandjustice wrote:
@Ayniia wrote:
@sweetex wrote:Sorry to ask this again, where do I stream this tonight?

I am not in the UK but HAVE to see it?
Please can anyone help us with this? And what time it starts, 8 or 9?
Frances ‏
[ltr]@foxylady93[/ltr]

2h
If you cannot access BBC for crimewatch tonight .join us here and it will be shown at 9pm #McCann https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/ …

Retweeted by Rosalinda V. Hutton

Saw this earlier. Go to her twitter for full link, think i might have chopped it off in cut and paste. Hope it helps

Thank you very much!

Most recent topics