Madeleine McCann found?

[SapphireSteel]

the TV programme Daybreak on 27 april 2012 interviewed redwood where he stated it was a criminal act by a stranger. If you google it you should be able to find the video.

So either andy redwood is lying, or telling the tuth, or he does not have th einformation that those claiming madeleine died in the flat do (and I sincerely hope those claiming they know madeleine is dead have handed in their evidence).

I'm assuming this is the interview you're referring to as yet again you did not provide the requested link. Thank you to the poster who did.

Anyway I'm taking it. So let's see what was actually said -

Dan Lobb: Do you believe she is still alive?

Redwood:Yes I do.

Dan Lobb:Why?

Redwood: I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us .

Erm....scuse me? He believes she's alive because it's a HUGE PRIVILEGE to be part of the review?

What on earth does that mean?

He's got a feather in his cap sitting on national tv? He's quite proud of his new promotion? Is it a condition of that promotion that he "toe the company line" which has so far been Team McCanns?

at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review

Which is it, Andy? Officially, you're REVIEWING the investigation, not REINVESTIGATING. Remember?

Is that we came with a completely open mind.

Are you sure about that Andy? Why would you even have to state it? It goes without saying, surely, being that you are a "professional" investigator - an "open mind" is one of the job specs, surely?

:waitasec:



We were untouched by anything that’s gone before, and, as part of that, two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she’s not...and in relation to her being alive, yes, there is a real possibility that she’s alive

:lol:

Kate Garraway:

So what are the things that make you think that…because I think you know we’re all clinging to the hope, aren’t we?

Dan Lobb:

Yeah. I mean it’s kind of hard evidence but there is still going to be hope - as long as she’s not found dead


Redwood:

Yes, I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence,

What evidence exactly? Care to share? I thought you were reviewing the investigation, not the evidence?

that, um that you know,

Um, no we don't?

that that, that

what?

is as a criminal act -

What is?

and that has been,

What has been???

you know,

No! We don't!


undertaken by by a stranger,

What act??

and so from that


From what????


- she’s…

She's what??

and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive

Huh????

I'm sorry but try as I may I see exactly NOTHING in that mess except a bunch of hestiations and verbal diarrhea by someone who is extremely uncomfortable with the topic at hand.

Can you please show me exactly where he says "we know a stranger abducted Madeleine"?

I read this conversation as -

Interviewer - so, you think Madeleine's still alive?

Andy - yes, because I am so thrilled at getting this promotion.

I - sorry?

A - what I meant to say was, I have no agenda here. none at all. except I am thrilled to be here. Hi everyone.

Oh and by the way I think Madeleines alive because I've been told to say that, also we haven't found her dead.

I - What evidence do you have

A - well none really but you know we haven't found her body and there's Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart who look a bit like Madeleine. Is my hair OK?


:banghead:

 

[Clutchbag]

I'm assuming this is the interview you're referring to as yet again you did not provide the requested link. Thank you to the poster who did.

Anyway I'm taking it. So let's see what was actually said -

Dan Lobb: Do you believe she is still alive?

Redwood:Yes I do.

Dan Lobb:Why?

Redwood: I believe she’s still alive because, at the beginning of this case…it’s a huge privilege for us .

Erm....scuse me? He believes she's alive because it's a HUGE PRIVILEGE to be part of the review?

What on earth does that mean?

He's got a feather in his cap sitting on national tv? He's quite proud of his new promotion? Is it a condition of that promotion that he "toe the company line" which has so far been Team McCanns?

at the Metropolitan Police to be part of this investigation…er, investigation review

Which is it, Andy? Officially, you're REVIEWING the investigation, not REINVESTIGATING. Remember?

Is that we came with a completely open mind.

Are you sure about that Andy? Why would you even have to state it? It goes without saying, surely, being that you are a "professional" investigator - an "open mind" is one of the job specs, surely?

:waitasec:



We were untouched by anything that’s gone before, and, as part of that, two key elements of it is to go: 1 Madeleine is alive and the other is, sadly she’s not...and in relation to her being alive, yes, there is a real possibility that she’s alive

:lol:

Kate Garraway:

So what are the things that make you think that…because I think you know we’re all clinging to the hope, aren’t we?

Dan Lobb:

Yeah. I mean it’s kind of hard evidence but there is still going to be hope - as long as she’s not found dead


Redwood:

Yes, I mean, you know, we have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline, and there is clearly opportunity there - for Madeleine McCann to have been removed from that apartment alive - and it is our belief, as experienced investigators - on the evidence,

What evidence exactly? Care to share? I thought you were reviewing the investigation, not the evidence?

that, um that you know,

Um, no we don't?

that that, that

what?

is as a criminal act -

What is?

and that has been,

What has been???

you know,

No! We don't!


undertaken by by a stranger,

What act??

and so from that


From what????


- she’s…

She's what??

and there are other cases around the world, as you know where, many years later, people have been taken and been found alive

Huh????

I'm sorry but try as I may I see exactly NOTHING in that mess except a bunch of hestiations and verbal diarrhea by someone who is extremely uncomfortable with the topic at hand.

Can you please show me exactly where he says "we know a stranger abducted Madeleine"?

I read this conversation as -

Interviewer - so, you think Madeleine's still alive?

Andy - yes, because I am so thrilled at getting this promotion.

I - sorry?

A - what I meant to say was, I have no agenda here. none at all. except I am thrilled to be here. Hi everyone.

Oh and by the way I think Madeleines alive because I've been told to say that, also we haven't found her dead.

I - What evidence do you have

A - well none really but you know we haven't found her body and there's Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart who look a bit like Madeleine. Is my hair OK?


:banghead:

thats why hes called andy deadwood

poor bloke seems to me he was thrown inthe deep end of some sh it andhad to swim

 

[brit1981]

thats why hes called andy deadwood

poor bloke seems to me he was thrown inthe deep end of some sh it andhad to swim

His name is andy redwood, and he is an actual detective with years of experience working first hand in cases like this, I think he might know a bit more than people who do not have access to all the evidence and have not worked one day as a criminal investigator. He does not say he believes madeleine could be alive because it is a privilge to work on the case, that is said as a by the by, it is misleading to claim otherwise. His team have stated that after looking at the evidence they believe that madeleine was taken in a criminal abduction by a stranger and that there is a chance she is still alive. But because a few randoms on the internet disagree with him he is being insulted.

The PJ also said there was no evidence that the mccanns had broken any law.

But if people really think andy redwood is not up to the job why don't they pop to victoria and offer their expertise.

 

[Clutchbag]

His name is andy redwood, and he is an actual detective with years of experience working first hand in cases like this, I think he might know a bit more than people who do not have access to all the evidence and have not worked one day as a criminal investigator. He does not say he believes madeleine could be alive because it is a privilge to work on the case, that is said as a by the by, it is misleading to claim otherwise. His team have stated that after looking at the evidence they believe that madeleine was taken in a criminal abduction by a stranger and that there is a chance she is still alive. But because a few randoms on the internet disagree with him he is being insulted.

The PJ also said there was no evidence that the mccanns had broken any law.

But if people really think andy redwood is not up to the job why don't they pop to victoria and offer their expertise.

His team when that statement by him was made had only been through 25% of the files and his opinion was a PERSONAL one

he did not speak for the team, so I wouldnt be putting words into his mouth

As for no one having access to the files as you have said here and on another thread, well that is untrue as the mccannpjfiles.co.uk are available for the world to see, arent they

Eta *waves* to Lady Brunnette, nice to see you here

 

[brit1981]

Actually only 80% of the PJ files were made available to the public, 100% were made available to the police. So the only people who can have access to all the information are the police.

Andy redwood is head of the team so when he speaks about what the police think he is speaking for the team. But again why have none of these experts claiming to have seen all the facts i.e 100% of the files rather than just the 80% released to the public and know for a fact the mccanns are involved and madeleine is dead and andy redwood is not up to the job, popped down to victoria and offered their expertise to the police as consultants? I am quite sure if someone turns up there and tells the police thye have proof of all their claims they and their proof would be welcomed with open arms.

 

[brit1981]

he was on TV as a representitive of the police? Can I just ask if you have passed your suspicions and worries about the mccanns and andy redwoods abilities on the the police - you could make a formal complaint if you believe this is a pseudo exercise, and redwood is not up to the job.

 

[SapphireSteel]

No one will have to make a formal complaint about anyone.

The man has already illustrated his competence and level of expertise by announcing the mind boggling opinion that Madeleine was either dead, or she was alive.

Is this really the best Scotland Yard has to offer?

ullhair:

History will judge these fools.

It has already begun.

 

[Sabot]

No one will have to make a formal complaint about anyone.

The man has already illustrated his competence and level of expertise by announcing the mind boggling opinion that Madeleine was either dead, or she was alive.

Is this really the best Scotland Yard has to offer?

ullhair:

History will judge these fools.

It has already begun.

The fact remains that either could be true. An Abductor could have killed Madeleine, so both have to be looked at. But he also said that he believed that Madeleine had been taken by a Stranger, so let's hope that she is still alive, eh?

 

[Sabot]

Actually only 80% of the PJ files were made available to the public, 100% were made available to the police. So the only people who can have access to all the information are the police.

Andy redwood is head of the team so when he speaks about what the police think he is speaking for the team. But again why have none of these experts claiming to have seen all the facts i.e 100% of the files rather than just the 80% released to the public and know for a fact the mccanns are involved and madeleine is dead and andy redwood is not up to the job, popped down to victoria and offered their expertise to the police as consultants? I am quite sure if someone turns up there and tells the police thye have proof of all their claims they and their proof would be welcomed with open arms.

And Scotland Yard have properly translated and certified Files. Not the mess of mistranslations that are loose on The Internet.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The fact remains that either could be true. An Abductor could have killed Madeleine, so both have to be looked at. But he also said that he believed that Madeleine had been taken by a Stranger, so let's hope that she is still alive, eh?

What the McCann fails to understand, is that every year that ticks by without a repeat "abduction" is another year on the balance sheet of probability.

Like Jonbenet Ramsey before her ( a very, very similar case on so many levels), the lack of a repeat offense, or uncovering of a possible suspect, will speak volumes in the future.

In the 5 years Madeleine has been gone, there has been not one single similar "abduction", or even one attempt, ditto the years prior. With every non eventful year that passes, a random abductor working to order or design becomes ever more unlikely.

The one thing the McCann cannot control is time. They also cannot fabricate evidence where none exists.

Madeleine will not turn up in Germany nor in a brothel in Morocco.

Time has already proven that holidaying children are not being hunted by an organised gang, a random gypsy, a sad local pedophile, or anyone else.

The only evidence of any "abductor" is the McCann's insistence. That is all. Not even so much as a fingerprint, a stray hair, an unusually parked car...nothing.

It is also literally impossible for Tanner's sighting to have occurred, so we already know someone's lying.

Two plus two equals four, at least it did when I went to school.

:cow:

 

[Sabot]

Why do so many people want this poor child dead? There is no evidence of such.

 

[Donjeta]

Is there evidence that she is alive?

JMO. It is not a question of "wanting". I want Madeleine to be alive, well and happy in the care of her loving family but sadly it is not the case. Our wishes do not change the reality of whatever happened here.

 

[BritsKate]

Why do so many people want this poor child dead? There is no evidence of such.

Statistically when a child is abducted by a stranger they are overwhelmingly murdered within a 3 hour time frame. Incredibly rare are abductions that result in the victim surviving the ordeal. (I can think of five cases from recent memory compared to a hundred [if not still more] that ended in murder.)

When people follow dozens a year, like myself, you tend to steel yourself to the reality of this statistic. I had one case that gutted me so I had very real life issues as a result...now, I brace myself for the worst and hope for the best. Otherwise I just couldn't follow these kids stories - and their justice is very near my heart. They deserve to be remembered, to have someone looking over them, even if it's only wondering where they are and saying a prayer for them wherever they might be.

And the alternative - when a child is murdered by someone they loved and trusted - it is simply heartbreaking. There are many who don't, won't, or can't bring themselves to see caretakers in that light but again statistically speaking it is very often a perpetrator closest to the victim when that victim is a child.

MOO

 

[SapphireSteel]

Why do so many people want this poor child dead? There is no evidence of such.

That is a horrific accusation. :what:

What we WANT is for Madeleine to be playing happily with her siblings, being tucked up safely in bed at night with her mummy and daddy looking after her.

It is not OUR choice that this did not happen that night (or any other)...it is the result of choices her "parents" made.

It is a very, very poor second choice for "so many people" to understand the EVIDENCE, the liklihood of what actually happened that night, and to wish for justice for Madeleine. We understand the chances of her being alive are next to zero.

Her own careless parents clearly couldn't give a toss, which was demonstrated from the beginning of that so-called "family holiday" when they began the pattern of neglecting their children.

I really think accusing concerned posters of "wishing the poor child dead" is not only grossly inaccurate and insulting, it completely belittles and negates what we try to do at WS. We are only posting because we CARE.

:furious:

 

[brit1981]

I think the statistic claiming children who are abducted are murdered within a three hour time frame has been misinterpreted. I think one will find that it is actually of those abducted children who are murdered most are found within three hours. And so what about statistics, should we tell jaycee dugaard she is wrong to be alive because statistically she should not be, and say as her abductor did not abduct any other children obviously it was her stepfather Lets remember the spite he was subjected to online until she was found. What about Natascha Klampscuh (no idea how to spell her surname), she was abducted and found alive, and her abductor is not known to have hamred or abducted anyone else and there were no other abductions in the area. Her mother was pout through hell by spiteful accusers too, with one man pulling a tony bennett and insisting her mother was involved in her death, and when she was found he then changed it to insisting her mother was involved and the girl was forced to go to court becuase of his behaviour!!!

And when people are spending so much time imagining a child's death then it seems they do want her dead. lets face it some people have put themselves in such a position that if madeleine is found alive they lose a huge amount as well as facing public humiliation. If people truely cared about madeleine they woudl not spread untruths about her family. Even on this forum people have repeated the accusation that the smiths positively identified gerry as the man carrying a child - this is untrue so why say it? People have said the mccanns could have set the fund up as a charity - this is untrue as it would be illegal under english and welsh law, so again what is the purpose of making this false claim, people have said that madeleine's dna was found in the car, this is incorrect in fact material containing alleles which were shared by madeleine's entire family were found in the family car. Those are just three examples but are hugely damaging for madeleine as they are designed to convince people madeleine is dead and her parents involved,but despite the fact a glance at the PJ files and English law make it clear that these are untrue people insisting on claiming they are fact - why? Why tell such untruths if not to damage the hunt for madeleine? Perhaps people need to look at the groups they are getting this infomation from, and look at their motives. I know of one group (which does not deserve to be named) which portray themselves as an actual organisation and ask for money, but I have failed to see any record of them in either the charity commission or companies house so what is happening to the money they have been requesting under their organisations name, have they actually done what they claim is their aim? I do not think so. This group also has the cheek to claim that despite following the law, and not illegally setting up as a chairty, and not keeping the money in their own bank account as they were legally entitled but setting up a not for profit company to look after the money raised to find madeleine, the mccanns are the ones who are not transparent.

Also why can jane tanners sighting not of occurred (jeremy and gerry were not in a position to see the person, they were facing each other and side on to the junction, they had no reason to be turned away from each other looking up the road to the junction in those few seconds tanner saw the man)?

Why would a car have to be parked unusually? We do have cars in the EU, especially in little villages, and we therefore have places to park them. Unless a car was parked on the pavement I would not notice it or say it was unusual. People normally park on the side of roads. Besides why would someone have to have a car, they could have lived locally, they could have walked to the shore where they had a boat. What we do have are two independent sightings of a man and child with very similar descriptions.

How do we know what the intruder left behind or not. It was a holiday let which had hundreds of people in and out, there is no way to tell what was left behind by whom. Besides if someone wore gloves why would they leave any trace behind if they were just in the flat for five minutes.

There is also, sadly, the fact that this was no an isolated event. Three years before a child went missing just a few miles away and has yet to be found, in the years before madeleine disappeared there were several break ins to holiday flat and tourist children abuse din their beds. The last one was just six months before madeleine disappeared. All happened within an hour of PDL. In the weeks before madeleine was taken there had been break ins to other flats in the complex, even the one above 5A. I wish Madleines abduction was an isolated event, it woudl make it more likely that she was taken by someone desperate for their own child, but worryingly these other crimes also took place. But as described above there have been plenty of abductions where no other child was taken from the area.

Andy redwood was very clear that they wanted to start the investigation without preconceptions so they started on the two paths of madeleine is either alive or dead and worked from there. After a year they had found no evidence to discount her being alive, but found evidence to state it was a criminal act by a stranger i.e to discount anyone she knew. For this people who were not there, have not one shred of investigative experience, do not have access to all the evidence, have not translated the evidence professionally are now saying he is wrong and an idiot and that they for some undisclosed reason know the truth of what happened.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I

.

Also why can jane tanners sighting not of occurred (jeremy and gerry were not in a position to see the person, they were facing each other and side on to the junction, they had no reason to be turned away from each other looking up the road to the junction in those few seconds tanner saw the man)?
.

Follow this carefully.

One narrow street...very narrow, almost an alleyway.

Two men stand chatting in the deserted street...one of whom was "checking" children and ostensibly alert.

Jane Tanner claims she walked past Gerry and Jez Wilkins. She would have almost had to squeeze past them.

JEZ WILKINS DID NOT SEE HER.

It is impossible that he did not, if she walked down that street as she claimed.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

Follow this carefully.

One narrow street...very narrow, almost an alleyway.

Two men stand chatting in the deserted street...one of whom was "checking" children and ostensibly alert.

Jane Tanner claims she walked past Gerry and Jez Wilkins. She would have almost had to squeeze past them.

JEZ WILKINS DID NOT SEE HER.

It is impossible that he did not, if she walked down that street as she claimed.

:banghead:

First no it was not almost an alley. If you look at it it is a normal street. People seem to have this quaint idea that villages in the EU are full of narrow streets, and people do not have cars and are on alert as soon as they see a car or stranger, but this is not true.

Gerry had finished checking the children, and jeremy was walking his child, they were facing each other in conversation. It is very easy for them to not notice someone walking by if they were talking to each other and not looking around the street. When people are talking to each other, they tend to look at each other its not suspicious. And if Jane was lying for gerry and Kate, then what is the point of this lie? If it was a lie she woudl know jeremy would not back it up (and in fact neither did gerry), so why not say she saw the man when the street was empty of gerry and jeremy as they were not there on her return trip? And how did her description a) stay the same for five years and b) almost exactly match that of the smiths despite them being independent sightings (and no the smiths have never positively identified gerry as the man they saw, and several independent witnesses i.e complex staff have identified gerry as being on the complex at the time of the smith sighting).

Plus why are groups of people insisting on spreading lies to encourage people to think madeleine is dead and her parents involved? Claiming the smiths positively identified gerry, claiming it would be legal for the fund to be set up as a charity, claiming madeleines' DNA was more or less identified in the flat and car, are just three falsehoods which are easily disproved by looking at the PJ files and English law, yet people keep spreading these lies? Why, there is no good reason, but they seem desperate to have Madeleine believed dead and the investigation into her disappearence brushed under the carpet? These are the people who need to be looked at, especially the ones claiming to be organisations and asking for money despite there being no record of them in companies house or the charity commission.

 

[SapphireSteel]

First no it was not almost an alley. If you look at it it is a normal street. People seem to have this quaint idea that villages in the EU are full of narrow streets, and people do not have cars and are on alert as soon as they see a car or stranger, but this is not true.

Gerry had finished checking the children, and jeremy was walking his child, they were facing each other in conversation. It is very easy for them to not notice someone walking by if they were talking to each other and not looking around the street. When people are talking to each other, they tend to look at each other its not suspicious. And if Jane was lying for gerry and Kate, then what is the point of this lie? If it was a lie she woudl know jeremy would not back it up (and in fact neither did gerry), so why not say she saw the man when the street was empty of gerry and jeremy as they were not there on her return trip? And how did her description a) stay the same for five years and b) almost exactly match that of the smiths despite them being independent sightings (and no the smiths have never positively identified gerry as the man they saw, and several independent witnesses i.e complex staff have identified gerry as being on the complex at the time of the smith sighting).

Plus why are groups of people insisting on spreading lies to encourage people to think madeleine is dead and her parents involved? Claiming the smiths positively identified gerry, claiming it would be legal for the fund to be set up as a charity, claiming madeleines' DNA was more or less identified in the flat and car, are just three falsehoods which are easily disproved by looking at the PJ files and English law, yet people keep spreading these lies? Why, there is no good reason, but they seem desperate to have Madeleine believed dead and the investigation into her disappearence brushed under the carpet? These are the people who need to be looked at, especially the ones claiming to be organisations and asking for money despite there being no record of them in companies house or the charity commission.

You offer absolutely no evidence, just opinion...and wild accusations at anyone who disagrees with it.

Unfortunately, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence state that opinion is wrong.

People who do not agree with the <modsnip> are not "spreading these lies".

It <modsnip>, the same tactic the McCann themselves employed, instead of cooperating with the investigation for their daughter.

:maddening:

 

[brit1981]

I have offered evidence. One can see from the photos that the street was not almost an alley. One can see in the PJ files that the smiths never, not once, positively identified gerry, one can see from the PJ files that madeleines dna was not found in the car, one can see from the charity commision that the fund could nto legally be set up as a charity etc.

These lies are being spread by people such as the group that call themselves the madeleine foundation, who have been in trouble before for writing falsehoods such as the ten facts booklet and then repeating them in their sisty facts booklet which I have seen people quoting from on here.

It is a lie that the fund coudl have been a charity, it is a lie the smiths positively identified gerry, it is a lie that the mccanns never normally checked their children etc. If you have one shred of actual evidence of this then link to it by all means, <modsnip>. And by the by these same individuels also make fun of other missing girls such as april jones and her family, and the former secretary of the madeleine foundation has done this sort of thing before on more thna one occasion, and has been questioned by the police because of it before madeleine disappeared. So the bile is not really anything to do with madeleine, she is just an easy target.

 

[Sabot]

The McCanns did cooperate with The Police. And if you read The 48 Questions you will see that Kate McCann had already answered questions put to her on the previous day. Sadly, this Interview was not recorded in any way. One might wonder why.

And again, if you look at The 48 Questions, at least half of them were deliberately designed to get Kate to incriminate herself, and were at the very least downright insulting.
Kate McCann simply exercised her right to silence. Gerry answered all of their questions, and when he asked to see their "Evidence" he was fobbed off because they didn't have any.
Their Stitch Up didn't work, so The PJ continued to leak lies.