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

by Guest 17.11.13 15:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

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

I could guess at why, but if I explained in isolation people would think I was insane. Really need to draft the whole theory. People can think I'm insane after that instead.

by Guest 17.11.13 15:50

Tony Bennett wrote:

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"

Do you ever think that even the McCanns are occasionally bewildered by the amount of support they receive from friends in high places? I reckon they probably are, but it's a bit like having a wobbly tooth - they don't want to probe it too carefully in case it falls out.

by noddy100 17.11.13 16:09

The timeline written on book cover inc tanner man so they must have known about it before police came so less than an hour?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 16:22

noddy100 wrote:The timeline written on book cover inc tanner man so they must have known about it before police came so less than an hour?

If you look at Tanner's early statements, she says that it didn't occur to her at first that her 'sighting' might be the abductor - and then, that even when it did, she didn't want to tell Kate about it as it might upset her.

But it appears, as clear as anything, on the two timelines.

What neither Tanner nor the McCanns nor any of the Tapas 7 have told us is:

How did the information proceed from Jane Tanner's memory bank to Russell O'Brien he wrote her claimed sighting down twice on Madeleine's sticker book when (or before) the police arrived?

Actually, that question includes an assumption - namely that Tanner had 'information'.

It ought to be rephrased, as follows:

Why did Russell O'Brien write her claimed sighting down twice on Madeleine's sticker book when (or before) the police arrived?

by notlongnow 17.11.13 16:32

....or why were they even writing a timeline and not looking for maddie?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 16:33

notlongnow wrote:....or why were they even writing a timeline and not looking for maddie?

Yes, I concede.

A much better question.

by Mirage 17.11.13 17:11

Not to mention Jane Tanner letting everyone run off in the opposite direction of the "abductor". But here is where AR stepped in and gently coaxed her to tell her story from the beginning, exactly as it happened. Point zero.

Just imagine the fight that woman must have put up against the disinhibiting effects of alcohol. She must have been repeating to herself "I must not let Kate know I've seen the abductor" until her head hurt. At all costs she had to protect Kate's feelings. Madeleine's can wait, she thought. She's quite capable of looking after herself.

Come on Janie girl, think about it, she's been looking after herself all week... and those two tiny tots as well. Besides, she'll wake up in a minute and give this man her tuppence worth.

Look at Kate. She's a wreck. I don't think it would be a good idea for us all to give the impression we know anything at this stage. The group know I've seen something. Thank God I didn't drop myself in it and tell them which way he actually went. At least we can all act natural and run about like headless chickens for a while, give the impression we're doing something constructive. That way no one will be any the wiser. I think if we run away from the beach area that would be a crumb of comfort. Actually catching the abductor could finish her off, the way she is at the moment, especially if he's got her anywhere near the water.

Tomorrow, when she's calmed down and maybe grabbed some rest, I can broach the subject ever so gently. Once I've explained I was only acting in her best interests I know she won't blame me. Forever friends - I just know that's what she'll say.

Now where was I? Err, hmm, you know I don't really,, I mean, I know at the moment. I suppose you're thinking I'm a fantasist but, you know, err, well, it's like I've just lost my train of thought sort of, you know.

........ And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.

by Guest 17.11.13 17:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
notlongnow wrote:....or why were they even writing a timeline and not looking for maddie?
Yes, I concede.

A much better question.

And it is certainly strange that they were adding JTs sighting to a timeline before anyone had really questioned her about it.
They certainly didn't know where it was she had seen him. Because in her Rog she states that the first time she showed anyone was at 3am the following night (5th), after returning from giving her statement.
She is adament in her statement that she told RO and then FP, and then it all gets very vague until she is brought to speak to the GNR at around 3 am (4th).
Which is the first time she tells GM.

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 17:38

Spot on Mirage.

This 'I didn't tell anyone the single most important piece of information that would give us a chance of finding Madeleine until Matthew err...wrote it on the two timelines around 10pm...err until I told Gerry in the middle of the night...err until he told Kate when they were looking in bins the next morning' story has always been the biggest flag for me.

If we were talking about some tiny detail whose importance might not have been immediately evident to Jane or the group or Gerry, then perhaps.

But a stranger carrying away a child from where, ahem, a child was "taken" and only minutes before she was discovered to have been "taken"?

It's more than ludicrous.

[Sorry about bold italics, blame the iPhone! ]

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 17:40

Mirage wrote: And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.

I insist on accuracy.

He didn't 'return to point zero', either with Jane Tanner or Old Mother Hubbard.

No, he drew everything back to zero, which, IMO, is a lot more dififcult.

He drew everything back to zero.

Drew.

Everything.

Here's the actual quote:

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

Mind you, one wonders if he was talking to Tanner, if you look at this bit:

"...try and sort of take everything back..."

Actually, drawing everything back to zero and beginning at the beginning is not exactly new.

It put me in mind of a song sung by Julie Andrews a long time ago.

It began with these profound words of eternal wisdom:

"Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start..." - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 17:55

Quoting Mary Poppins. You're OK by me.

by ProfessorPPlum 17.11.13 17:56

Quoting Mary Poppins. You're OK by me.

by russiandoll 17.11.13 17:58

I do not get your point Tony. Not at all. Could you please explain the difference ?

by Guest 17.11.13 18:04

So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?
And became a little confused and hesitant not because she is drippy but because no one seemed to be taking this seriously, until the GNR arrived. Because she was not party to the original script.
There was then a panic amongst the others to include this sighting now into the timeline of checks. Because it wasn't going to go away.

She doesn't hide the fact that she doesn't get on too well with GM in her Rog.

by **Hobs** 17.11.13 18:22

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

What they sought to do doesn't tell us it was what they did

To try means to attempt it doesn't say they succeeded.
Where is the beginning for him, the start of the review or the start of the investigation?
He doesn't tell us so i can't assume.
What does zero mean to him if it isn't the beginning?
He tells us it is zero if we like, not that it is zero to him.
Beginning is mentioned twice making it sensitive.
Note the qualifiers he uses which weaken his statements.
Try, which is mentioned twice and sort of.
Sort of doesn't mean they did and if they can't tell us they took it back to the beginning. i can't do it for him.
Order is important, re-analyse then re-assess.
What is the everything they are re-analysing and re-assessing?
He doesn't tell us so i can't assume.
Does the everything include the beginning or zero and when are these points?

Note the dropped pronoun in relation to accepting nothing.
If he can't take ownership i can't do it for him.

If this investigation is to start from the beginning does it mean from the day Maddie vanished?
Some time before then?
Some point after then?

If he is starting from the beginning, zero if we like, then he has to question the mccanns, the tapas 7, Robert Murat and all the witnesses who were present that week plus all those who came into contact with the mccann's after may 3 as they may have seen or heard something untoward, noticed a change in behavior or language, come across something that seemed odd, unexpected.
Family members who know them would notice anything strange or different.

He would then also need to have all the family's medical records to see if there were any health problems ( coloboma can have health issues and especially since Maddies was described by parents as almost perfect/almost perfectly formed)
Number of cycles needed etc.

The result of this could indicate a motive as well as a suspect.

The IVF clinics would need to hand over the records of the mccann's to show the genetic relationship between the parents and the children and Maddie and the siblings.
The results of this could indicate a motive and or/suspect

Bank records going back a 5 years would show a pattern in relation in income and outgoings, how they were managing, how they could afford the cost of IVF and again number of cycles needed

Records for 2007 would show if they were in financial difficulty and how they paid for their vacations.
Financial records for the tapas 7 would also be required for at least a couple of years as well to see what was coming in and going out.

DNA samples from the mccann family and the taps7 and their families must also be taken.

Physical evidence such as clothing, cuddlecat and even the hire car if it is still around should be re tested, the apartment even though is is now 6 years past should be retested and luminol or similar should be used, it would still reveal blood etc even after clean up.
The same goes for the car if still available.

The results from the above will point them in the right direction if they are starting this case as new and fresh.

by Guest 17.11.13 18:47

NSA being in the spotlight so much these days; isn't there anything they could do?

Produce telephone records/conversations; bank accounts, maybe, just maybe criminal records?

They seem to know everything, maybe here too?

by Lance De Boils 17.11.13 19:24

"Back to zero" is indeed a very vague term.

It could be taken as back to...

...when Madeleine was conceived,
...when the holiday was first suggested/booked,
...when they left home for the airport at the start of the holiday.

"Accepting nothing" is more positive in terms of the investigation, though, imo. To me, that says not taking anything anyone has said for granted. Believing nothing without evidence to back it up.

If I was running the investigation "from zero", I'd want proof of Madeleine's parentage. Proof that she even went to Portugal with them. Proof that she was alive and well on the morning of 3rd May.

I'd want proof of bloody everything.

by Mirage 17.11.13 20:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mirage wrote: And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.
I insist on accuracy.

He didn't 'return to point zero', either with Jane Tanner or Old Mother Hubbard.

No, he drew everything back to zero, which, IMO, is a lot more dififcult.

He drew everything back to zero.

Drew.

Everything.

Here's the actual quote:

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

Mind you, one wonders if he was talking to Tanner, if you look at this bit:

"...try and sort of take everything back..."

Actually, drawing everything back to zero and beginning at the beginning is not exactly new.

It put me in mind of a song sung by Julie Andrews a long time ago.

It began with these profound words of eternal wisdom:

"Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start..." - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A very good place!

by Mirage 17.11.13 20:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
Mirage wrote: And, this is what must have befallen AR. He returned to point zero with Jane Tanner and was never the same again.
I insist on accuracy.

He didn't 'return to point zero', either with Jane Tanner or Old Mother Hubbard.

No, he drew everything back to zero, which, IMO, is a lot more dififcult.

He drew everything back to zero.

Drew.

Everything.

Here's the actual quote:

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to –to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning –and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

Mind you, one wonders if he was talking to Tanner, if you look at this bit:

"...try and sort of take everything back..."

Actually, drawing everything back to zero and beginning at the beginning is not exactly new.

It put me in mind of a song sung by Julie Andrews a long time ago.

It began with these profound words of eternal wisdom:

"Let's start at the very beginning. A very good place to start..." - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by canada12 17.11.13 20:53

I posted this on the Libel trial thread in response to the beginnings of a discussion about Martin Smith, but I've realized it's likely relevant here too.

In the CW show, Martin Smith's name is never actually mentioned. He's not identified. All that Redwood says is that it was an Irish family.

The transcript is on this thread.

Now I realize the likelihood of there being two Irish families, in that same general area at the same general time spotting Smithman carrying Madeleine, is remote... but if SY can come up with an unnamed holidaymaker to who matches Tannerman's description... what's to stop them from being a bit cagey and only inferring it's the Smith family they're talking about?

And then watching what goes on behind the scenes in order to try and discredit Martin Smith.

Just a thought.
.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 21:10

canada12 wrote:I posted this on the Libel trial thread in response to the beginnings of a discussion about Martin Smith, but I've realised it's likely relevant here too.

In the CW show, Martin Smith's name is never actually mentioned. He's not identified. All that Redwood says is that it was an Irish family.

The transcript is on this thread.

Now I realise the likelihood of there being two Irish families, in that same general area at the same general time spotting Smithman carrying Madeleine, is remote...but if SY can come up with an unnamed holidaymaker who matches Tannerman's description...what's to stop them from being a bit cagey and only inferring it's the Smith family they're talking about?

And then watching what goes on behind the scenes in order to try and discredit Martin Smith.

Just a thought.

So, you are basically accusing Redwood of possibly being cagey and devious...and then 'watching behind the scenes'.

The entire thrust of Crimewatch was: 'Don't look there, look here', meaning the Smiths' sighting.

He is telling the world: "The Smiths saw a man with young girl walking towards the beach".

There are IMO so many reasons why the alleged sighting by the Smith family deserves to be put under a powerful microscope.

And, let's face it, no person who genuinely saw someone would object to their evidence being put under scrutiny.

I've written about this enough on the forum already, so would only be repeating myself, but I do have one more question about Martin Smith.

Did he forget his glasses the night of 3 May 2007, or forget where he put them?

by Guest 17.11.13 21:18

dantezebu wrote:So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?

Bingo.

by canada12 17.11.13 21:37

Tony Bennett wrote:So, you are basically accusing Redwood of possibly being cagey and devious...and then 'watching behind the scenes'.

The entire thrust of Crimewatch was: 'Don't look there, look here', meaning the Smiths' sighting.

He is telling the world: "The Smiths saw a man with young girl walking towards the beach".

There are IMO so many reasons why the alleged sighting by the Smith family deserves to be put under a powerful microscope.

And, let's face it, no person who genuinely saw someone would object to their evidence being put under scrutiny.

I've written about this enough on the forum already, so would only be repeating myself, but I do have one more question about Martin Smith.

Did he forget his glasses the night of 3 May 2007, or forget where he put them?

Well, I think "accusing" is the wrong word to use, in this case. I think "suggesting he might be cagey and devious" might be a more appropriate phrase, without anything negative attached to it. In fact I would think, if he had used these tactics, then it would be clever of him.

He's told the world that an Irish family saw a man with young girl walking towards the beach.

Who, in the audience, would automatically assume it was the Smith family? Only those familiar enough with the case to know about the sighting in the first place, and then of those, only those who knew the Smiths had made statements to that effect.

I'm not necessarily at odds with you, Tony... I'm suggesting another tack that SY might be taking in order to suss out people who might have a vested interest in interfering with the investigation :-).

by **Tony Bennett** 17.11.13 21:43

dantezebu wrote:So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?

Many things in this world are possible.

Many are also impossible.

Whether we think JT may have seen a bloke on his own carrying a child in pyjamas past G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May would appear to depend on the degree of trust you have that Redwood is telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the bloke who went about all week in a dark jacket and light trousers.

And didn't use one of the available buggies and didn't care enough to put a blanket over his child

by russiandoll 17.11.13 23:10

Tony I never thought I would say this about you of all people..........you are beginning to sound like Textusa !

Did he forget his glasses the night of 3 May 2007, or forget where he put them?

No bad thing but please don't start writing War and Peace like the sisters do over there !

by Gillyspot 18.11.13 8:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
dantezebu wrote:So is it possible that JT did actually see someone?
Many things in this world are possible.

Many are also impossible.

Whether we think JT may have seen a bloke on his own carrying a child in pyjamas past G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May would appear to depend on the degree of trust you have that Redwood is telling you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the bloke who went about all week in a dark jacket and light trousers.

And didn't use one of the available buggies and didn't care enough to put a blanket over his child

Should Jane Tanner have actually seen anyone (which I still sadly doubt) then WHY was he walking in the wrong direction if he was returning from the creche or was he late (very) in taking his child TO the creche?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Credit to Textusa for this image

CW seems to have forgotten their professionalism in this McCann show.

No mention of hair colour/style of Smithman
No mention of height of Smithman
No mention of clothing (particularly cream trousers - possibly with buttons).

Obviously Smithman wouldn't be wearing these clothes today but if CW really wanted to JOG someones memory then they could at least have shared these vital bits of information.

Only my opinion of course

Apologies if all this has been covered before (admin feel free to delete if this is so).

by Guest 18.11.13 8:53

From Gillyspot
"Should Jane Tanner have actually seen anyone (which I still sadly doubt) then WHY was he walking in the wrong direction if he was returning from the creche or was he late (very) in taking his child TO the creche?"

Exactly. So why did Redwood show us the photograph of "Tannerman" facing the direction away from the direction in which he should have been walking, but in the direction JT said she saw him? Did he try to mislead 6 million people, or was "Tannerman" on a little jaunt around PdL prior to going home for the night.? If this was the case it should have been stated in the program where he was going. They certainly need to clear this point up before any more great "revelation moments". Otherwise the white paint will be washed off in the first rain.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.11.13 9:09

russiandoll wrote:Tony I never thought I would say this about you of all people....you are beginning to sound like Textusa!

russiandoll, I have to hand it to you!

Your timing is impeccable!

The very next post on the thread, after the above, was Gillyspot reproducing a brilliant piece of analysis, complete with aerial photo, by...

Textusa

by russiandoll 18.11.13 9:36

well, Tony... are you going to be less cryptic and explain your q re MS forgetting the spectacles or forgetting where he had put them ? !

Intrigued . com !

by Lance De Boils 18.11.13 9:55

I think TB is referring to the part in Smith's statement where he says he'd met Murat previously, but he didn't wear his glasses then. [My paraphrasing.]

My reading is that he meant Murat didn't used to wear glasses.

TB reads it that Smith wasn't wearing his glasses. Forgive me if I've got that wrong, Tony.

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?