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

by chillyheat 16.11.13 19:16

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.

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

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

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

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.

by Guest 17.11.13 11:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
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'

Yes AFTER they have been arrested, not before.

by Guest 17.11.13 12:50

I always thought it was illegal to name people before they have been charged with any offence but that has certainly fallen by the wayside now.

by jeanmonroe 17.11.13 12:52

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

UPDATE due to be screened.

A day AFTER the LAST (?) libel 'trial' date in Lisbon.

so, imo, if it goes 'pear shaped' on the 27th trial date, then the BBC will probably put out 'what about this new sighting of abductor'

Will Redwood be on the 'update' programme?

28/11/2013
Not currently available on BBC iPlayer
Duration: 1 hour

The team are live with Britain's biggest unsolved cases including, following a special appeal, the latest developments in the Madeleine McCann investigation.

eta: BBC 'not' now SAYING 'the latest developments in the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann' BUT using the words 'the Madeleine McCann INVESTIGATION'

Maybe someone at the BBC DID read our 'comments' after all!

by tasprin 17.11.13 13:18

It all seems so co-ordinated:

Libel trial: McCann witnesses - very poor indeed.

BBC Crimewatch: A dishonest and misleading "reconstruction" which omitted David Payne who, according to official police statements, was the last person, apart from her parents, to see Madeleine. And Scotland Yard's "new" e-fits.

Sunday Times: McCanns 5-year suppression of Oakley report and "crucial" e-fits.

Tractorman: The dead patsy - ran long enough to bury the e-fit controversy.

Last day of libel trial: McCanns and Amaral to have their say.

BBC Crimewatch: Update

by Bishop Brennan 17.11.13 13:27

tasprin wrote:It all seems so co-ordinated:

Libel trial: McCann witnesses - very poor indeed.

BBC Crimewatch: A dishonest and misleading "reconstruction" which omitted David Payne who, according to official police statements, was the last person, apart from her parents, to see Madeleine. And Scotland Yard's "new" e-fits.

Sunday Times: McCanns 5-year suppression of Oakley report and "crucial" e-fits.

Tractorman: The dead patsy - ran long enough to bury the e-fit controversy.

Last day of libel trial: McCanns and Amaral to have their say.

BBC Crimewatch: Update

That's what happens when you have a vast fund of cash, and have hired top lawyers and PR advisors... You have to say they are earning their money. Credit to them.

by russiandoll 17.11.13 14:31

Am not sure if the Smiths being non- UK citizens is pertinent. How far were they deemed entitled to privacy given the newsworthiness of their sighting or maybe because of law, were not to be identified by name by the POLICE, [media can rummage for info but police must follow a strict set of procedures ?]
It is a matter for speculation whether Redwood was
being deliberately ambiguous [ and if so, where is the proof of his motives being not good?]
simply being unclear in a natural resort to pronouns
guile then or a lack of clarity with a simple decision not to repeat a name and to refer to the family members by the word witnesses.

without a ref to any other parties, most reasonable people would believe the e fits were made by 2 of the Smiths.
maybe that was cunning.. they did not contribute to the e-fits but Redwood intended a belief that they did
maybe they did contribute and so Redwood was telling the truth.

Maybe there were 2 different witnesses not known about before and if that is the case, then they could not be named as the Smiths and that is very interesting.

We will have to agree to differ on this Tony because without proof I will not be saying anything to slur Redwood's reputation and will believe for now that if there is any silence or ambiguity from him, his motives are good, not bad ...and that he was telling the truth about fighting for Maddie.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 14:47

russiandoll wrote:It is a matter for speculation whether Redwood was being deliberately ambiguous

So we are now agreed that he was ambiguous. Let's not get to deeply into why he was

simply being unclear in a natural resort to pronouns...or a lack of clarity...

Maybe

...without a reference to any other parties, most reasonable people would believe the e-fits were made by 2 of the Smiths

I agree 100% with that statement

maybe that was cunning...they did not contribute to the e-fits but Redwood intended a belief that they did

IMO that would amount to deliberate deception

maybe they did contribute...

After not seeing his face because the child (so they say) was hiding his face, and/or because he 'had his head down', it was dark and there was poor lighting, and in Martin Smith's case he had gone out to dinner and Kelly's Bar without his glasses on

Maybe there were 2 different witnesses not known about before and if that is the case, then they could not be named as the Smiths and that is very interesting.

The why does he not say: 'Two other witnesses..."

We will have to agree to differ on this Tony because without proof I will not be saying anything to slur Redwood's reputation...

We already IMO have a great number of indications about Redwood from his actions and omissions to date

...and that he was telling the truth about fighting for Maddie

His terms of appointment from David Cameron, as stated on the record by his spokesman on 12 May 2011, were - quote: "To help the family"

by SixMillionQuid 17.11.13 14:51

russiandoll wrote: Maybe there were 2 different witnesses not known about before and if that is the case, then they could not be named as the Smiths and that is very interesting.

He wasn't referring to any other witnesses other than the Irish family and as we know three of them have made statements.

by thetruthbeknown 17.11.13 14:53

What is the 'proper' procedure for doing efits? I remember reading that the McCanns and a PI had drawn up the Tannerman one. Was just wondering how it is usually done? Would the person who actually sighted the person need to be present, or could it be drawn up by others using a description in statements etc?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 15:45

thetruthbeknown wrote:What is the 'proper' procedure for doing efits? I remember reading that the McCanns and a PI had drawn up the Tannerman one.

Just to set the record straight here.

1. Jane Tanner's sighting was on the TWO different timelines written out by Russell O'Brien on the cover ripped off the Sainsburys Activity Sticker Book belonging to Madeleine McCann - and handed to police between 11.00pm and midnight that evening

2. Dr Kate McCann claimed not to know about that sighting 24 hours later

3. The Portuguese Police thought it was a fabrication from Day One

4. The first we knew about it was statements released 22 days later, on 25 May, by the Portuguese Police and Dr Gerald McCann

5. The description given by them was very vague

6. Jane Tanner had told police on 13 May that the man she said she saw on 3 May was Robert Murat (she later changed her mind)

7. The artist's sketch in this case was done by Melissa Little, claimed to be 'an F.B.I.-trained forensic artist', and arranged and paid for by Brian Kennedy/the McCann Team

8. It wasn't released until late October 2007, nearly 6 months after the event, which made it valueless

9. As Tanner says she didn't see his face, there was no face on the sketch

10. Just 3 months after this, Tanner said that her man looked like 'monsterman'/'Cooperman', who had a moustache and straggly hair

11. Redwood has now produced a photograph - yes! - a photograph of a man wearing the same kind of clothes he was wearing on holiday - and who's kept his girl's pyjamas she was wearing that night, and who says he was exactly like Tannerman - walking back from his night creche at 9.15pm exactly on 3 May 2007

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?