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

by chillyheat 16.11.13 19:00

Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.
Gimme de eye ?

by Bishop Brennan 16.11.13 19:05

Seems to me that the CW program had two objectives:

1. Try to justify the £5m (and counting) cost of reading the case files and yet making zero progress.
2. Create a set-up for a potential whitewash / closure.

Were they successful?

1. As earlier posts show, it was all dressed up with drama and carefully chosen words to make it sound like there had been major breakthroughs, a "revelation" moment. The CW program was hyped massively on TV and in the press. So yes - reasonable job. Few people look under the covers (although luckily the Sunday Times subsequently did!)

2. Anyone reading the case files knows that it was physically impossible for an abductor to have taken Maddie and be seen as Tannerman. He had to be removed. The reason is simple - with him gone, there is now a massive 45 minute window for "the abductor" to take Maddie. We all "know" the patio door was unlocked and it would take just seconds for an intruder to go in, take the kid, and put her into a (mystery as yet) van.

How will it now go? They now have the choice of 2 whitewashes. 1: Find a dead someone (like Tractorman) and pin it on him; or 2: Declare that they "know" she was abducted but cannot be sure by whom. My bet is for option 2 but with heavy "suspicion" laid onto one or more suspects. At no point will the McCanns be in the frame for this. That much was clear from the CW program and SY statements.

by Guest 16.11.13 19:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Smith sighting never happened. And this is a 180 degree reversal from my position of a few weeks ago. In fact I'm not sure that seeing it given so much credence by Redwood isn't what changed my mind.
re: "seeing it given so much credence by Redwood....[may have] changed my mind!"

REPLY: On top of the credence given by Redwood to all kinds of irrelvant blond men, charity collectors, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, there is the ridiculous hype from the BBC:

...'elite detectives'...'Britain's top police team'...'unprecedented'...'mass of evidence'...'thousands of documents'...'painstaking investigation'...'truest account yet'...'careful and critical analysis'...'taking nothing for granted'...'we picked it up very quickly'...'revelation moment'...'enormous discovery'...'exhaustive investigation'...'third important strand'...'bringing in new information'...and, last but not least...'draw everything back to zero' (all actual quotes).

That may have impressed many people.

But not me

That CW episode is my only exposure to Mr Redwood. But I'm afraid he did give off that vibe, which I often pick up from senior policemen when they are interviewed on television, of being as thick as two short planks.

Obviously I'm not saying that he is, you understand.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 19:10

ChillyHeat wrote:Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.

Gimme de eye ?

Er, no.

It's 'Gimmee' as in 'Give me'.

Think: Golf

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 19:14

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
But I'm afraid [REdwood] did give off that vibe, which I often pick up from senior policemen when they are interviewed on television, of being as thick as two short planks.

That's not the vibes he gave out to me.

I saw the furrowed brow, the look of pretending to be in earnest and look really really serious.

And then I took in the hubristic, totally over-the top language and hyperbole, pumping up the Met and himself to an absurd extent - in a way that no competent police officer would ever need to do.

And I also saw...

...deep cunning.

by chillyheat 16.11.13 19:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.

Gimme de eye ?
Er, no.

It's 'Gimmee' as in 'Give me'.

Think: Golf

Ok Ty...

by Daisy 16.11.13 19:20

I'll keep it simple. I see little sincerity in the bloke.

by Bishop Brennan 16.11.13 19:22

Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 19:51

Bishop Brennan wrote:Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"

Short - but brilliant, and so true (though I still have my conspiracy hat on).

Just a couple of (minor) corrections:

On the date of the Crimewatch programme:

(a) the SY project had been under way for 2 years, 5 months and 3 days
(b) the likely total cost had risen to nearer £6 million than £5 million

by Guest 16.11.13 19:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"
Short - but brilliant, and so true (though I still have my conspiracy hat on).

Just a couple of (minor) corrections:

On the date of the Crimewatch programme:

(a) the SY project had been under way for 2 years, 5 months and 3 days
(b) the likely total cost had risen to nearer £6 million than £5 million

7000 posts Tony. Hats off to you.

by MaryB 16.11.13 20:01

But did it actually say for definite on the Crimewatch programme that these two e-fits came from the Smiths. Or might they have come from other witnesses. How does anyone know for sure they came from the Smiths.

by chillyheat 16.11.13 20:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Or, if we take off the conspiracy hat, we might paraphrase all that Mr Redwood said, as follows:

"After spending nearly 2 years, and nearly £5m on this investigation, I am here tonight to tell you that we have made no progress of any sort. You may think this makes us look like a crowd of utter buffoons. But wait... here are:

1. A couple of Efits that have been hidden on a shelf for 5 years. And are probably made up.

2. A series of vague and entirely useless references to random men who were in the vicinity of the club on the day and have no other linkage to the case whatsoever.

Er, that's it. See you in another 2 years!"
Short - but brilliant, and so true (though I still have my conspiracy hat on).

Just a couple of (minor) corrections:

On the date of the Crimewatch programme:

(a) the SY project had been under way for 2 years, 5 months and 3 days
(b) the likely total cost had risen to nearer £6 million than £5 million

I take my hat off to you sir for your work.....Im trying, but the name is so common I dont know where to begin laughat

At the moment I seem to be in Golders Green big grin

I cant wait for the rest of your work.... clapping

Ive always thought the efits were a runaround

by sallypelt 16.11.13 20:04

MaryB wrote:But did it actually say for definite on the Crimewatch programme that these two e-fits came from the Smiths. Or might they have come from other witnesses. How does anyone know for sure they came from the Smiths.

MaryB, this is the question that I have often asked, but I haven't had the answer. Who has said that the E-fits were done by the Smiths?

by chillyheat 16.11.13 20:07

MaryB wrote:But did it actually say for definite on the Crimewatch programme that these two e-fits came from the Smiths. Or might they have come from other witnesses. How does anyone know for sure they came from the Smiths.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4530-new-photo-clue-to-madeleine-mccann-case

Ive tried....

by **Tony Bennett** 16.11.13 20:17

MaryB wrote:But did it actually say for definite on the Crimewatch programme that these two e-fits came from the Smiths? Or might they have come from other witnesses? How does anyone know for sure they came from the Smiths?

You (and sallypelt) make a valid point. I actually think that REewood used cunning language in what he said, but the TV audience were definitely meant to think that these e-fits came from the Smiths.

Though if you look closely at the wording, he doesn't say so with precision.

Here's the relevant exchange from Crimewatch:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMROLIWALA

This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years. Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery. It was here… [FILM OF THE RUE DA ESCOLA PRIMARIA] …at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?

REDWOOD

He was a white man with brown hair and the child that he had in his arms was described as being about 3-4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas – a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann.

AMROLIWALA

Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images.

REDWOOD

This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward.

by chillyheat 16.11.13 20:27

What CW tried to produce was simply....FAMILY. Now anyone hearing that would deduce "How can a family be wrong". Throw in a Gerry lookalike and we are back to the internet detectives discussing for possibly another 6 or so years.
Its not going to happen.....
We need to find out why SY are saying the McCanns are not in any way suspected of anything

by MarleneP 16.11.13 20:32

It has also struck me that R'wood has spoken vaguely. Nothing is exactly: Tanner man was actually found? Has he hoarded his daughters Pijama six years? Who made the e-fits? Why should these e-Fits be important? Is it a man or are this two men? Why do they look like Gerry and Brunty? * just kidding

by roy rovers 16.11.13 20:37

ChillyHeat wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:Tony....Am I thinking correctly here.

Gimme de eye ?
Er, no.

It's 'Gimmee' as in 'Give me'.

Think: Golf
Ok Ty...

He certainly didn't invent it if it is the golf 'gimme' where the opposition concede that a putt does not need to be taken on the basis that it will not be missed. The first known use was 1929. Or is this the point?

by chillyheat 16.11.13 20:45

If Redwood really sat down with Mr Smith.....Then this is the realistic conversation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBw4YuBylvs

by Okeydokey 17.11.13 0:22

Clay Regazzoni wrote:I'm increasingly of the opinion that the Smith sighting never happened. And this is a 180 degree reversal from my position of a few weeks ago. In fact I'm not sure that seeing it given so much credence by Redwood isn't what changed my mind.

I've always kept an open mind on it. But as with just about everything else to do with this case, the evidence is vexingly ambiguous.

I take Tony's criticisms seriously.

I suppose the possibilities are:

1 It's genuine but of someone totally unconnected to MMcC's disappearance.

2. It's genuine and is a sighting of GMcC (or someone associated with the McCanns) with Madeleine.

3. It's genuine and is a sighting of a stranger abductor taking Madeleine away.

4. It's not genuine and is simply something dreamed up by the Smiths out of their interest/excitement about the case.

5. It was not genuine but was a malicious or misguided attempt to secure Murat's release from Arguido status.

Of course the curve ball here is the intervention of Brian Kennedy and the private detectives - but the latter seem to have not been fans of Team McCann.

by russiandoll 17.11.13 10:21

I disagree, Tony, that Redwood used cunning wording to make an implication re the witnesses, rather than be clear that they were from the Smith family, simply because he has not named them. You are clearly of the opinion that the viewer was meant to draw an inference re the Smiths' relationship to the e -fits.

He has named the Smiths is this exchange, has uses the term witnesses and then used a pronoun which links the Smiths to the e-fits. I find this a reasonable and not cunning way of speaking with an agenda or ulterior motive.

I have bolded a word which you did not, in the following quote : my own bold in blue. This for me is the link between the family and the e fits.

You claim the following re Redwood :

Though if you look closely at the wording, he doesn't say so with precision.

Here's the relevant exchange from Crimewatch:

My argument, the precision you would prefer is not necessary. He is clearly imo linking the Smiths with the e fits.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMROLIWALA

This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years. Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery. It was here… [FILM OF THE RUE DA ESCOLA PRIMARIA] …at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?

REDWOOD

He was a white man with brown hair and the child that he had in his arms was described as being about 3-4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas – a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann.

AMROLIWALA

Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images.

REDWOOD

This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward.

____________________

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 11:05

russiandoll wrote:I disagree, Tony, that Redwood used cunning wording to make an implication re the witnesses,

REPLY: You have (slightly) misunderstood me. My reference to Redwood's 'deep cunning' was actually all-embracing comment on his entire conduct for the past 2.5 years

rather than be clear that they were from the Smith family, simply because he has not named them. You are clearly of the opinion that the viewer was meant to draw an inference re the Smiths' relationship to the e -fits.

REPLY: Without a doubt

He has named the Smiths in this exchange, has used the term witnesses and then used a pronoun which links the Smiths to the e-fits...I have bolded a word which you did not, in the following quote: my own bold in blue. This for me is the link between the family and the e-fits.

You claim the following re Redwood :

Though if you look closely at the wording, he doesn't say so with precision.

Here's the relevant exchange from Crimewatch:

My argument, the precision you would prefer is not necessary. He is clearly imo linking the Smiths with the e fits.

REPLY: It's good that you've reproduced the exchange in full and your highligting of the word 'witnessed' is also very relevant.

I can however reinforce my point quite simply.

Redwood could have said:

"Two members of the Smith family helped to create e-fits..."

But he did not.

He deliberately chose to use this more ambiguous phrase:

"Two of the witnesses..."

Now, who can answer this?

Why did he not speak plainly and say: "Two members of the Smith family helped to create e-fits..."

I do see an element of guile here - and that goes back to earlier comments about the exact provenance of these efits which we still don't know for sure.

for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years. Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery. It was here… [FILM OF THE RUE DA ESCOLA PRIMARIA] …at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?

REDWOOD

He was a white man with brown hair and the child that he had in his arms was described as being about 3-4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas – a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann.

AMROLIWALA

Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images.

REDWOOD

This could be the man that took Madeleine, but very importantly, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I’d ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward.

____________________

by Guest 17.11.13 11:11

Tony, I don't think the Police name people who are helping an investigation i.e. witnesses, for two reasons:

a) In some cases it could lead to intimidation and reprisals and could be dangerous

b) It could jeopardise the investigation

For the same reason they never name suspects.........unless they are a danger to the public.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 11:19

candyfloss wrote:Tony, I don't think the Police name people who are helping an investigation i.e. witnesses, for two reasons:

a) In some cases it could lead to intimidation and reprisals and could be dangerous

b) It could jeopardise the investigation

REPLY: But Redwood has done all but name Martin Smith, hasn't he? Irish family...10.00pm...near the beach..carrying a young blonde girl...

For the same reason they never name suspects...unless they are a danger to the public.

REPLY: Que? Every day in this country we get news items which start: "A man has been arretsed on suspicion of..." Frequently, though by no means always, they are identified by the police in such a way that the media can publish the names.

In the Stuart Hall case, it was: "An 83-year-old man has been arrested at an address in Wilmslow, Cheshire on suspicion of..."

Minutes later, the media told the world: 'Stuart arrested on child sex charges'

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 17.11.13 11:19

Sounds interesting Tone.

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

Is DCI Andy Redwood sincere in believing the Smiths were capable of providing two efits of the man they said they saw?