Re: "Digging" with a helicopter (continued from 'digging at resort')

by ChippyM 12.05.14 12:56

galena wrote:I have to say I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the theory that SY are involved in some extremely devious scheme to implement the McCanns, by denying that they are suspects in order to put them off their guard. What would be the point? - the McCanns are now in a fully entrenched position and will keep doing what they have always done - playing the media and keeping their expensive lawyers on standby. It's way way too late to try to lull them into a sense of false security. When Redwood said that the parents were not suspects I am beginning to think he meant exactly what he said. IMO Operation Grange is not and has never been about finding Madeleine or the true perpetrators - it has been a PR exercise right from the start.

If SY suspected the McCanns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case, why would they alert the McCanns to that? Remember the DNA in the hire car and the 15 markers being not quite enough to secure a conviction. The Mc's got very busy getting their own forensic reports to refute that evidence and the dogs. Maybe a better tactic would be to get conclusive evidence BEFORE declaring them suspects.
What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
The McCanns have also used intricate PR tactics to twist everything and anything said against them. If SY declared them persons of interest before building a conclusive case, why give the McCanns a chance to spin what they have against them?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 12:59

ChippyM wrote:
If SY suspected the McCanns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case, why would they alert the McCanns to that? Remember the DNA in the hire car and the 15 markers being not quite enough to secure a conviction. The Mc's got very busy getting their own forensic reports to refute that evidence and the dogs. Maybe a better tactic would be to get conclusive evidence BEFORE declaring them suspects.
What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
The McCanns have also used intricate PR tactics to twist everything and anything said against them. If SY declared them persons of interest before building a conclusive case, why give the McCanns a chance to spin what they have against them?

I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.

by AndyB 12.05.14 13:00

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.

I don't think they did, did they? They announced who the suspects weren't

by Gillyspot 12.05.14 13:00

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:What concerns me is their insistence that "it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph. "

This makes me wonder whether they thought it might have been Gerry at the start, but didn't want to get involved in a hornet's nest.

Now that I can also agree with. I don't think they were lying as some do.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 13:06

AndyB wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.
I don't think they did, did they? They announced who the suspects weren't

Didn't say they did :) No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front. And if asked about specific people, saying 'no comment' would be as good as saying 'yes, they are suspects.'

by Cristobell 12.05.14 13:06

It looks as though SY are back in Portugal according to this article -5.40am Monday 12th May 2014 Police arrive in Portugal over McCann investigation. Looks as though they have ignored the birthday request.

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

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 13:10

Cristobell wrote:It looks as though SY are back in Portugal according to this article -5.40am Monday 12th May 2014 Police arrive in Portugal over McCann investigation. Looks as though they have ignored the birthday request.

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

To me this looks like an update to the original article 'Police arrive in Portugal over McCann investigation', it doesn't really mention whether SY are there today or not.

by AndyB 12.05.14 13:15

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
AndyB wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I can't think of a police investigation where the police have announced up front who the suspects were.
I don't think they did, did they? They announced who the suspects weren't

Didn't say they did :) No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front. And if asked about specific people, saying 'no comment' would be as good as saying 'yes, they are suspects.'

Yes, you're right. After I clicked "send" I started thinking about it. Previously I've been of the opinion that Redwood should have said nothing if what he wanted to do was to hide the fact that he was investigating the parents. But how would he answer the direct question from a reporter: "Are Madeleine's parents suspects?". I think the only thing he can do is lie and perhaps his announcement that neither they nor the T7 were persons of interest was just answering the question before it was asked

by sami 12.05.14 13:17

Markus 2 wrote:I fear there is not going to be any answers, if the Mcanns are guilty and not brought to justice then maybe it is in their minds they are going to have time to spend with their other children. Because if it was an accident and they get banged up ,what sort of life would the other two children have without parents, I know a lot here would say, a better one.

On the other hand if Murat or Malinsky or anyone else is involved is it ever going to be resolved or proven ,I doubt it. They are going to have to wrap this up one way or another pretty soon

Call me harsh but having two other children to care for is hardly cause to allow them unpunished for "loosing" a third child.

I doubt there is a criminal anywhere in the world that would not plead mitigating circumstances when it comes to avoiding a prison sentance.

Not one single adult in the whole of this world has been held accountable for a three year old meeting god only knows what fate. How can that be ? Those who should have looked after her didn't and those who could help her now won't. Shame on the whole lot of them.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 13:18

Gillyspot wrote:

What concerns me is their insistence that "it would not be possible to recognise the individual in person or via photograph. " - Peter, Aiofe & Martin ALL state this. WHY?

Good morning, Gillyspot, I have also read your other more recent post here saying you don't believe the Smiths are making this up.

I am sorry to have had to suggest this in the first place, many months ago, but I have to stick with it as all the evidence about the Smith sighting ponts that way to me.

I think it's been cleared up, at least on this thread, that DCI Redwood did NOT say the two e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family.

But what was so cunning and manipulative was that he gave every appearance of doing so in the broadcast - fooling a great many people, not least here on CMOMM.

I see an inconsistency here with Martin Smith on the one hand, like the others, saying he couldn't recognise the individual, but on the other hand saying with conviction that he had a clear enough sight to be absolutely sure it wan't Robert Murat.

With his face hidden by the child?

In the dark?

Seeing him only for a second or two?

With very poor street lighting?

I'm definitely not buying it.

Yet he is '60% to 80% sure', 4 months later, that it was Gerry McCann, based on Gerry carrying one of the twins on his shoulder in exactly the same way as everybody else does?

I'm not going to buy that one, either.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHY?

Either

(a) They are all telling the truth, and they saw absolutely or virtually nothing of his face because the child was in the way

or

(b) They are all deliberately lying.

I think you were drawing our attention to their insistence that they wouldn't be able to recognise him again. I think that's a very good observation.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 13:24

ChippyM wrote:
What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed...

Then by now, someone would have been arrested and charged, and there would be no need for DCI Redwood to spend tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money hiring an Alouette Mark III Portuguese military helicopter.

If the Tapas group had identified anyone responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, the Portuguese police would have all the evidence they need.

What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed?

It hasn't happened

by Markus 2 12.05.14 13:27

sami wrote:
Markus 2 wrote:I fear there is not going to be any answers, if the Mcanns are guilty and not brought to justice then maybe it is in their minds they are going to have time to spend with their other children. Because if it was an accident and they get banged up ,what sort of life would the other two children have without parents, I know a lot here would say, a better one.

On the other hand if Murat or Malinsky or anyone else is involved is it ever going to be resolved or proven ,I doubt it. They are going to have to wrap this up one way or another pretty soon

Call me harsh but having two other children to care for is hardly cause to allow them unpunished for "loosing" a third child.

I doubt there is a criminal anywhere in the world that would not plead mitigating circumstances when it comes to avoiding a prison sentance.

Not one single adult in the whole of this world has been held accountable for a three year old meeting god only knows what fate. How can that be ? Those who should have looked after her didn't and those who could help her now won't. Shame on the whole lot of them.

No I agree they should not be above the law.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 13:28

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front.

EXCEPT, that is, Britain's top police force, the Metropolitan Police - albeit they often done so by leaking to Clarence Mitchell:

* man with keys who worked for the Ocean Club

* three burglars

* 'smelly bin man'

* 6 Brits in a white van

etc. etc.

by Watching 12.05.14 13:29

ChippyM wrote:

What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?

1. If Mr & Mrs are Redwoods chief suspects why has he allowed others to be wrongly named in press as suspects?
2. If someone in TM has blabbed, especially best pals the Payne's I think Mr & Mrs would have figured that one out. These people Paynes and Mr & Mrs are extremely close, could Payne's pretend?

Redwood & his investigation a farce. Redwood stated categorically Mr & Mrs are not suspects.

by HelenMeg 12.05.14 13:32

ChippyM wrote:
galena wrote:I have to say I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the theory that SY are involved in some extremely devious scheme to implement the McCanns, by denying that they are suspects in order to put them off their guard. What would be the point? - the McCanns are now in a fully entrenched position and will keep doing what they have always done - playing the media and keeping their expensive lawyers on standby. It's way way too late to try to lull them into a sense of false security. When Redwood said that the parents were not suspects I am beginning to think he meant exactly what he said. IMO Operation Grange is not and has never been about finding Madeleine or the true perpetrators - it has been a PR exercise right from the start.

If SY suspected the McCanns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case, why would they alert the McCanns to that? Remember the DNA in the hire car and the 15 markers being not quite enough to secure a conviction. The Mc's got very busy getting their own forensic reports to refute that evidence and the dogs. Maybe a better tactic would be to get conclusive evidence BEFORE declaring them suspects.
What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
The McCanns have also used intricate PR tactics to twist everything and anything said against them. If SY declared them persons of interest before building a conclusive case, why give the McCanns a chance to spin what they have against them?

I'm inclined to agree with Galena's thoughts at this stage. Maybe a lot of us are guilty of letting wishful thinking raise levels of optimism. But what if, as Chippy, says ' SY suspected the Mc Canns but didn't yet have enough evidence to bring a conclusive case?' Or any investigating police force for that matter? What happens on those occasions ? The police know what happened but haven't got sufficient evidence.. what are the options available?

by HelenMeg 12.05.14 13:35

Watching wrote:
ChippyM wrote:

What if one of the tapas group has blabbed and SY don't want the Mc's to know? The Paynes weren't in the Crimewatch charade. If someone had given some incriminating evidence against the McCanns, why would SY alert them to that before building a water tight case?
1. If Mr & Mrs are Redwoods chief suspects why has he allowed others to be wrongly named in press as suspects?
2. If someone in TM has blabbed, especially best pals the Payne's I think Mr & Mrs would have figured that one out. These people Paynes and Mr & Mrs are extremely close, could Payne's pretend?

Redwood & his investigation a farce. Redwood stated categorically Mr & Mrs are not suspects.

In that case does anyone have rights to challenge this and ask for evidence that Mc Canns have been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement? Or in such a situation, are the UK public forced to swallow this? Just that, if this is the case, and Redwood brings this to a 'whitewash' close - what do we do next? I guess we still have the PJ who may come to another conclusion

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 13:37

HelenMeg wrote:
In that case does anyone have rights to challenge this and ask for evidence that Mc Canns have been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement? Or in such a situation, are the UK public forced to swallow this? Just that, if this is the case, and Redwood brings this to a 'whitewash' close - what do we do next? I guess we still have the PJ who may come to another conclusion

For my part I'm not in the business of "what ifs", I'll wait and see what the conclusion is before considering next moves :)

by russiandoll 12.05.14 13:39

quote TB : I think it's been cleared up, at least on this thread, that DCI Redwood did NOT say the two e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family.

not for me, although the words above were not uttered, the context for me clearly sent the message that these were drawn up by the Smiths.

1. The Irish family were mentioned by the male CW presenter.

2. He then spoke with Redwood about the sighting.

3. The presenter then said that 2 of the witnesses helped draw up e fits. NOT 2 WITNESSES.

4. He was referring to the only witnesses mentioned in the context of this sighting, imo.

5. The inference I drew was that these were 2 members of the Smith family.

I can't see any reasonable way to conclude that 2 witnesses not from the Smith family were thrown into the mix as part of some cunning plan.

by russiandoll 12.05.14 13:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed...
Then by now, someone would have been arrested and charged, and there would be no need for DCI Redwood to spend tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money hiring an Alouette Mark III Portuguese military helicopter.

If the Tapas group had identified anyone responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, the Portuguese police would have all the evidence they need.

What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed?

It hasn't happened

Should you not be following that with IMO Tony, rather than stating that as a fact? It is simply your belief.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 13:48

HelenMeg wrote:
Watching wrote:
Redwood & his investigation a farce. Redwood stated categorically Mr & Mrs are not suspects.
In that case does anyone have rights to challenge this and ask for evidence that Mc Canns have been thoroughly investigated and cleared of any involvement?

ANS: No, not at all. The only option for anyone who thinks that they have any evidence of a crime being committed by someone, which is prosecutable in the British courts, is to 'lay an information' to a bench of Magistrates, i.e. try to start a private prosecution

Or in such a situation, are the UK public forced to swallow this?

ANS: See above

Just that, if this is the case, and Redwood brings this to a 'whitewash' close - what do we do next?

ANS: See above

I guess we still have the PJ who may come to another conclusion

ANS: It is still open to anyone in this country, or anyone anywhere in the world for that matter, to bring to the PJ's attention any 'new and credible evidence' (their words) that any named individual is in some way responsible for the reported disapperance of Madeleine

by ChippyM 12.05.14 13:59

russiandoll wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed...
Then by now, someone would have been arrested and charged, and there would be no need for DCI Redwood to spend tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money hiring an Alouette Mark III Portuguese military helicopter.

If the Tapas group had identified anyone responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, the Portuguese police would have all the evidence they need.

What if one of the Tapas group has blabbed?

It hasn't happened

Should you not be following that with IMO Tony, rather than stating that as a fact? It is simply your belief.

Indeed, I was about to say that. When I say 'blabbed', I didn't mean what that person said was totally conclusive. Maybe again they told SY 'something' or had a suspicion with which they are trying to build a case

by noddy100 12.05.14 14:01

I think the McCanns held back the Smith info mainly because it looked like GM but also
because it moved the time to one that didn't suit their story

by ChippyM 12.05.14 14:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
No police force is going to state who their suspects are up front.
EXCEPT, that is, Britain's top police force, the Metropolitan Police - albeit they often done so by leaking to Clarence Mitchell:

* man with keys who worked for the Ocean Club

* three burglars

* 'smelly bin man'

* 6 Brits in a white van

etc. etc.

Again this is opinion. Can any of us PROVE that SY has been informing Clarence Mitchell? It seems more likely to me that Clarence and his team make up a load of crap and SY are not particulary bothered as they have better things to do.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 14:03

russiandoll wrote:quote TB : I think it's been cleared up, at least on this thread, that DCI Redwood did NOT say the two e-fits were drawn up by members of the Smith family.

not for me, although the words above were not uttered, the context for me clearly sent the message that these were drawn up by the Smiths.

1. The Irish family were mentioned by the male CW presenter.

2. He then spoke with Redwood about the sighting.

3. The presenter then said that 2 of the witnesses helped draw up e fits. NOT 2 WITNESSES.

4. He was referring to the only witnesses mentioned in the context of this sighting, imo.

5. The inference I drew was that these were 2 members of the Smith family.

I can't see any reasonable way to conclude that 2 witnesses not from the Smith family were thrown into the mix as part of some cunning plan.

OK, let me try to explain further, responding to the words in blue above.

Referring to your points 1 to 5, I agree that points 1 to 3 are factual.

We differ about the inference to be drawn from the statement: "Two of the witnesses".

The understanding of what was meant by that is crucial.

I agree that we were meant, in context, to think that he was referring to the Smith family 'sighting'.

This is where I say DCI Redwood has been very cunning and manipulative.

He could have made things plain by the presenter or himsef saying: "Two members of the family".

But he/the programme chose not to do so. And bear in mind that the Met and the BBC (whose programme cost them £1 million to make) would have agreed the wording of all of this programme, incuding the commentary on the controversial reconstruction, word for word.

I wonder, RD, if you would accept any or all of the following propositions:

1. That the evidence from the Sunday Times is that Kevin Halligen/Henri Exton/the private investigators drew up these 2 e-fits?

2. That no-one has ever explicitly said on the record that any of the Smiths drew them up?

3. That neither Redwood nor the presenter in CrimeWatch explicilty said that the Smiths drew up these e-fits?

4. That the e-fits look like two quite different people?

5. That the e-fits look like they've been developed on two quite different computer programs?

6. That the Smiths were insistent that none of them could recognise the man again from a photograph or otherwise?

7. That the Smiths say they saw him in the dark?

8. That the lighting at the time was very poor?

9. That the way the child was being carried obscured the man's face?, and

10. That they only saw him for a second or two, or a few seconds at the very most?

by Guest 12.05.14 14:06

IF Operation Grange ARE trying to get this case solved. Solved as in NOT a Whitewash. Then as i think most are of agreement with, that it would have to be 100% watertight.

If the Mccann's were ever brought to court then again everything would have to be 100% watertight. No margin of error. Nothing. Otherwise the case could collapse on some technicality. They would only get ONE chance at this.

Now given the sheer amount of people that one way or another seem to be implicated in the 'conspiracy / perverting the course of justice' side then the mind boggles.

(Would be interesting to see a list of all the names as it can't be far off a 100 when you break it down)

You only have to read many of the threads on this excellent forum to see the connections of people and how they could be linked or helped the Mccann's.

Now surely and obviously they can't charge every single person with perverting the course of justice but the sheer complexity of it all then i can sort of understand why it is taking so long and costing so much money to explore.

That's if they do have an honourable intention of solving this crime.

Otherwise if the sole purpose was TO HELP the Mccann's, then a whitewash would of happened a long time ago and everything wrapped up before the 7 year anniversary. Closure. END OF.

IMO of course.

by Garrincha 12.05.14 14:10

Re the Smiths: someone I know well in Ireland told me a lot of Irish people frequent PDL, and the word among them is: don’t get involved in this case because pressure will be brought to bear if you do

by Markus 2 12.05.14 14:11

noddy100 wrote:I think the McCanns held back the Smith info mainly because it looked like GM but also
because it moved the time to one that didn't suit their story

Not necessarily imo , not if Smith is friend of Murat, just an opinion.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 14:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
6. That the Smiths were insistent that none of them could recognise the man again from a photograph or otherwise?

7. That the Smiths say they saw him in the dark?

8. That the lighting at the time was very poor?

9. That the way the child was being carried obscured the man's face?, and

10. That they only saw him for a second or two, or a few seconds at the very most?

All these points can be explained by the hypothesis that the Smiths (not necessarily all of them) thought originally that the person they saw might have been Gerry McCann, but did not say this to the police because at the time the McCanns were not publicly 'in the frame', and they didn't want to get involved. At the time that Smith declared his '60%-80%' certainty, the McCanns were most definitely 'in the frame'.

I'm not suggesting that this certainly happened, just that it is a hypothesis that explains these 5 points, and indicates a different conclusion to the one that you have purported, which is that the Smith family are liars.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.05.14 14:29

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
6. That the Smiths were insistent that none of them could recognise the man again from a photograph or otherwise?

7. That the Smiths say they saw him in the dark?

8. That the lighting at the time was very poor?

9. That the way the child was being carried obscured the man's face?, and

10. That they only saw him for a second or two, or a few seconds at the very most?

All these points can be explained by the hypothesis that the Smiths (not necessarily all of them) thought originally that the person they saw might have been Gerry McCann, but did not say this to the police because at the time the McCanns were not publicly 'in the frame', and they didn't want to get involved. At the time that Smith declared his '60%-80%' certainty, the McCanns were most definitely 'in the frame'.

I'm not suggesting that this certainly happened, just that it is a hypothesis that explains these 5 points, and indicates a different conclusion to the one that you have purported, which is that the Smith family are liars.

re: "They didn't want to get involved".

In formulating your hypothesis about Martin Smith and his family 'not wanting to get involved', WLBTS, have you taken into account at all the fact that within hours of his friend Robert Murat being made a suspect, Martin Smith:

* got on the 'phone to the police

* told them he saw someone not very clearly but he was quite sure it was not Robert Murat, and

* flew out to Portugal in June with two members of his family to make statements?

Not wanting to get involved?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 14:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
re: "They didn't want to get involved".

In formulating your hypothesis about Martin Smith and his family 'not wanting to get involved', WLBTS, have you taken into account at all the fact that within hours of his friend Robert Murat being made a suspect, Martin Smith:

* got on the 'phone to the police

* told them he saw someone not very clearly but he was quite sure it was not Robert Murat, and

* flew out to Portugal in June with two members of his family to make statements?

Not wanting to get involved?

Sorry Tony, but I have not come to the same conclusion that you have regarding those points. I'm still not prepared to call a whole family a bunch of liars.