CRIMEWATCH: Redwood TRANSCRIPT and the two 'Smithman' efits - Has Redwood been guilty of perverting the course of justice?

diatribe wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

diatribe wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:
***
I agree. May I add "time" of death to that?

You certainly may and I respectfully submit,  the smart money would be on not much later than 7 pm, May 3rd. 2007.

***
That or May 2 evening. I have difficulties to go into an earlier demise for many reasons.

You may possess a far greater knowledge of this case than I as I have only recently began studying it. Therefore I have to assume that the last independent person seeing Madeleine leave the Day Centre alive at 5.30 pm on the 3rd. inst. May is a credible and honest witness.

As previously stated, I am relatively new to this case so there may well be facts about even this witness that I have thus far not discovered.

***
Thank you, Diatribe. You are aware that the last not-family or -friend related person is Nanny Cat? That this nanny was dispatched forthwith to Greece after the "incident"? And that she was invited to Rothley Towers November 2007, just before the T9 got together there again?

Châtelaine wrote:

***
Thank you, Diatribe. You are aware that the last not-family or -friend related person is Nanny Cat? That this nanny was dispatched forthwith to Greece after the "incident"? And that she was invited to Rothley Towers November 2007, just before the T9 got together there again?

Thank you for this information, I've heard various rumours relating to 'Nanny Cat,' although I have to admit that I haven't as yet got around to reading her deposition. The file is so voluminous and when one is unpaid for one's services, it does take a fair bit of dedication to glean through the entire PJ case files., as did the translation into english which I understand various people undertook on a pro bono basis. All of which goes to prove just how much of their own personal time people are prepared to sacrifice in order to obtain justice for Madeleine.

With regards to this 'Nanny Cat,' without wishing to appear disrespectful to her chosen vocation in life, one would presume that she isn't an intellectual don. I'm also presuming that the PJ would have given her a fair bit of consideration during their enquiries due to the fact that she was the last independent witness to see Maddie alive. Were she lying, do you think that she would have been able to credibly withstand a grilling from the PJ, I'm presuming of course that she didn't opt to adopt her 5th ammendment/Miranda rights.

By the same hypothesis, would the McCanns have attempted to bribe her in some form, because to do so they would have had to have taken her into their confidence to some degree. I think you'd probably agree that in a case as serious as this, the least people that know about what transpired, the better, that's why I've always been sceptical of theories that place too much reliance on the complicity of their friends. As previously stated, there's been so many rumours, conspiracy theories, muddying of the water over the past 6 yrs. it can become a tad difficult to see the wood for the trees, which is of course, exactly what the McCanns set out to achieve.

Please don't take this as a denigration of your theories etc. This is purely my perspective on this matter and despite the McCann's efforts to stop people from voicing their opinion, at the end of the day we will all have different reasons for coming to the correct conclusion. I liken the McCann's predicament to travelling on a train they can't get off which hopefully is only heading for one destination

Diatribe,
she was shipped off within days to Greece. The PJ wouldn't have had a chance to "grill" her  there...
She was invited to the McCanns estate, days before the T9 met again for the first time since the fateful holiday ...

She has [and I have to admit it's rumours] since had a nanny job [unqualified?] at a millionaire's house in New York ... And the McCanns refused to disclose her whereabouts ...

She is the ONLY "independent"  witness to Madeleine's existence at 5:30pm May 3, 2007 ...

Forgive me for having my doubts.

Châtelaine wrote:Diatribe,
she was shipped off within days to Greece. The PJ wouldn't have had a chance to "grill" her  there...
She was invited to the McCanns estate, days before the T9 met again for the first time since the fateful holiday ...

She has [and I have to admit it's rumours] since had a nanny job [unqualified?] at a millionaire's house in New York ... And the McCanns refused to disclose her whereabouts ...

She is the ONLY "independent"  witness to Madeleine's existence at 5:30pm May 3, 2007 ...

Forgive me for having my doubts.

They're substantial doubts and I will now take the trouble to read her depositions etc. plus the general consensus of police opinion on her credibility. Although they may not have had the immediate opportunity to question her, undoubtably the PJ will have done so at some subsequent stage.

 Do you happen to know how they viewed her as a witness? What is the credit rating of other witnesses who allegedly saw Madeleine during the day time period of May 3rd? I ask this, because if there are doubts surrounding the credibility of the nanny, then we have to determine who was the last unimpeachable person to witness Maddie alive prior to the aforementioned. Upon first hearing of this case, due to the time lines, I have to admit that I thought the McCann's daughter had probably been killed a lot earlier, possibly even the day before, but I was dissuaded from this theory by the amount of people actually seeing her on the 3rd inst.

On the surface, 'Nanny Cat' doesn't seem to have aroused the suspicions of Goncalo Amaral who appears to be prepared to give the McCanns the benefit of his doubt by classifying Madeleine's death as an accident. Mind you, I think it highly likely he would have had libel on his mind at the time of writing his memoirs, if not his legal advisers most definitely would have.

I think we're on a tandem for that, Peter ...

PeterMac wrote:And to add to the confusion, the other person who has writen a book on the very subject says that
1 SHE (Kate) found Madeleine at tea at the Tapas bar at 5:30
and
2  SHE (Kate) signed Madeleine out of the creche at 5:30

Not all three versions can be correct.   Not in a Euclidian world anyway.
It is infinitely more like that none of them is correct and that Madeleine disappeared long before that alleged incident or incidents.

There's a couple of pages relating to Catriona Baker that I have found in the PJ files. The first relates to the portugese police interviewing her on the 6th May 2007 and the second to a couple of interviews conducted by the Leics. police the following April 2008. There is nothing definitive in the first interview relating to when she last saw Madeleine and it is only when questioned by the Leics. police that she actually states she witnessed Madeleine with her mother between 5.30 and 6.pm in the Tapas area She also states in this interview that she was with Madeleine during the course of the day on May 3rd. 2007.

Its perhaps of some interest to note that generally people's memories tend to diminish with the passing of time whereas in this case there are instances where they positively improve. It may be that on the 6th May 2007, the portugese police didn't attach enough significance to the fact that it was important to establish the last independent sighting of Maddie alive. There's nothing untoward in Catriona subsequently being in the UK , because she is a british citizen although I haven't determined her normal area of residency or its proximity to Leics.

Instead of concentrating on chasing up spurious sightings of perverts, bogus charity workers, petty walk in buglars et al, Inspector Clouseau might be more usefully employed with establishing when Maddie was actually last seen alive and by whom. I was under the misguided conception that Madeleine had been officially signed out of this Day Centre at 5.30pm, as opposed to being recollected as being seen around the area at the time, a yr. later.

The problem I've always had with the cadavar dogs is that a body needs to have been in a deceased state for circa a couple of hrs. before they can pick up the scent of death and the time line of between circa 6 and 7.45 pm always appeared to be tight for the dogs to have smelt the scent of death. Any removal of the body couldn't have been much later if the McCanns were to prepare themselves for the Tapas bar meeting with their friends and even then it would have been cutting it extremely fine.  It would make sense however if the time of death was retarded to prior to 5.30 which would allow more time for Madeleine's body to lay in state at the McCann's apt.

However, I can't see Catriona Baker stating that Maddy was with her during the course of the day if she wasn't, again that's a quantum leap from being conveniently mistaken about the timing of her last sighting of Maddie alive. Whatever way one looks at this Scotland Yard investigation, its clearly not concentrating on the correct timings or the relevant people which only substantiates my belief that its entire purpose is to whitewash the McCanns, there may even be a school of thought which would subscribe to the fact that far from being a methodical search for the truth, its a classic exercise in how not to conduct a search for the truth, methodical or otherwise.

If the McCanns really want people to start seriously searching for their daughter, they'd be best advised to dig into their Foundation Fund and start supplying them with a few of these.

Rumour has it that the OPM(Other People's Money) perhaps less affectionately known as the BBC, are in the process of spending circa 1 £million of licence fee payer's money on a grandiose reconstruction of the Jack the Ripper murders.

This programme will be specifically aimed at potential witnesses who were in the Whitechapel area between Sept. and October 1888. Persons of particular interest will be those attired in late victorian period clothing without a copy of the 'Sun' protruding from their waistbands.

Over half of the 75 people who have voted in this poll so far believe that DCI Redwood, Head of Operation Grange, was NOT sincere in leading the people of the United Kingdom to believe that 'Smithman' was the chief suspect for the crime of causing the disaappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Here are 9 questions that demand an answer in relation to the two e-fits Redwood showed us over eight months ago on CrimeWatch:





Above: The 2 efits shown to the nation by DCI Redwood and the BBC Crimwatch Team
 

1. Do you think these are e-fits of the same man, or of different men?

2. Did Redwood definitely imply that these were of the same man?

3. Did Redwood state or imply that these e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family?

4. Did Redwood actually state who drew them up?

5. Were they drawn up on two entirely different computer programs? (there have already been claims on this forum that they were)

6. Were they compiled by Henri Exton?

7. Were they then handed to the McCann Team?

8. Do either of these images physically resemble anyone we know who is connected in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

9. If they were drawn up by the Smith family, how could they possibly produce such clear e-fits when none of them saw his face clearly, they only saw him for a second or two, it was dark, the child was said to be covering his face, and all said that they would not be able to recognise him again?

Tony Bennett wrote:Over half of the 75 people who have voted in this poll so far believe that DCI Redwood, Head of Operation Grange, was NOT sincere in leading the people of the United Kingdom to believe that 'Smithman' was the chief suspect for the crime of causing the disaappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Here are 9 questions that demand an answer in relation to the two e-fits Redwood showed us over eight months ago on CrimeWatch:





Above: The 2 efits shown to the nation by DCI Redwood and the BBC Crimwatch Team
 

1. Do you think these are e-fits of the same man, or of different men?

2. Did Redwood definitely imply that these were of the same man?

3. Did Redwood state or imply that these e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family?

4. Did Redwood actually state who drew them up?

5. Were they drawn up on two entirely different computer programs? (there have already been claims on this forum that they were)

6. Were they compiled by Henri Exton?

7. Were they then handed to the McCann Team?

8. Do either of these images physically resemble anyone we know who is connected in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

9. If they were drawn up by the Smith family, how could they possibly produce such clear e-fits when none of them saw his face clearly, they only saw him for a second or two, it was dark, the child was said to be covering his face, and all said that they would not be able to recognise him again?

I posted this on another thread, but will also post it here. I think that one of the e-fits looks like this man:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LX7PpM4fs4s/UjJGhh96z2I/AAAAAAAAADU/klBodT_lA24/s1600/halligan320.jpg

sallypelt wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Over half of the 75 people who have voted in this poll so far believe that DCI Redwood, Head of Operation Grange, was NOT sincere in leading the people of the United Kingdom to believe that 'Smithman' was the chief suspect for the crime of causing the disaappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Here are 9 questions that demand an answer in relation to the two e-fits Redwood showed us over eight months ago on CrimeWatch:





Above: The 2 efits shown to the nation by DCI Redwood and the BBC Crimwatch Team
 

1. Do you think these are e-fits of the same man, or of different men?

2. Did Redwood definitely imply that these were of the same man?

3. Did Redwood state or imply that these e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family?

4. Did Redwood actually state who drew them up?

5. Were they drawn up on two entirely different computer programs? (there have already been claims on this forum that they were)

6. Were they compiled by Henri Exton?

7. Were they then handed to the McCann Team?

8. Do either of these images physically resemble anyone we know who is connected in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

9. If they were drawn up by the Smith family, how could they possibly produce such clear e-fits when none of them saw his face clearly, they only saw him for a second or two, it was dark, the child was said to be covering his face, and all said that they would not be able to recognise him again?

I posted this on another thread, but will also post it here.  I think that one of the e-fits looks like this man:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LX7PpM4fs4s/UjJGhh96z2I/AAAAAAAAADU/klBodT_lA24/s1600/halligan320.jpg

sallypelt, I disagree.

However, I will take my invesigations into these two efits one stage further.

I have evidence, still to be worked up further, that these two efits are of two different persons, both known personally to Kevin Halligen, and are not based on anything claimed by the Smith family.

Tony Bennett wrote:

sallypelt wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Over half of the 75 people who have voted in this poll so far believe that DCI Redwood, Head of Operation Grange, was NOT sincere in leading the people of the United Kingdom to believe that 'Smithman' was the chief suspect for the crime of causing the disaappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Here are 9 questions that demand an answer in relation to the two e-fits Redwood showed us over eight months ago on CrimeWatch:





Above: The 2 efits shown to the nation by DCI Redwood and the BBC Crimwatch Team
 

1. Do you think these are e-fits of the same man, or of different men?

2. Did Redwood definitely imply that these were of the same man?

3. Did Redwood state or imply that these e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family?

4. Did Redwood actually state who drew them up?

5. Were they drawn up on two entirely different computer programs? (there have already been claims on this forum that they were)

6. Were they compiled by Henri Exton?

7. Were they then handed to the McCann Team?

8. Do either of these images physically resemble anyone we know who is connected in any way to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

9. If they were drawn up by the Smith family, how could they possibly produce such clear e-fits when none of them saw his face clearly, they only saw him for a second or two, it was dark, the child was said to be covering his face, and all said that they would not be able to recognise him again?

I posted this on another thread, but will also post it here.  I think that one of the e-fits looks like this man:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LX7PpM4fs4s/UjJGhh96z2I/AAAAAAAAADU/klBodT_lA24/s1600/halligan320.jpg

sallypelt, I disagree.

However, I will take my invesigations into these two efits one stage further.

I have evidence, still to be worked up further, that these two efits are of two different persons, both known personally to Kevin Halligen, and are not based on anything claimed by the Smith family.

Hi Tony

I wasn't suggesting it was Halligan, just that the e-fit reminds me of him. It wouldn't make sense for it to be him, but, again, what does make sense in this sorry saga?

Pinched from twitter!

Cristobell wrote:Pinched from twitter!

great work!!! 

It really says it all!