Sunday, February 22, 2015

Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted


Introduction: Dr Martin Roberts.
Insight is a truly wonderful thing. It nourishes and advances those who are able to appreciate it. For the rest, knowledge is merely borrowed for the purposes of reference, not genuinely shared. Things are either what they are because we appreciate and understand what has been established, or they are simply taken on trust, on an ‘it is said by others’ basis.

For seven years past a watching international community has been witness to a growing clamour of borrowed knowledge regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, hearsay tearing repeatedly through the fabric of reason like a succession of tornados in America’s mid-west, and bringing us more recently to the most ludicrous of situations; one in which a UK police force is given a seemingly limitless budget, so as to review and pursue a case over which it has no legal jurisdiction, and in deliberate disavowal of the evidence collated by the original investigators. In an admitted collaboration with the UK government, they are acting ‘as if the abduction happened in the UK’ without first, or indeed ever, establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all.

It is at this point that I refer you wholeheartedly to the post that follows.

Besides being wonderful, insight is also scarce – so scarce in fact that, in all these seven years no one has truly been able to cut the Gordian knot that is the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann, never mind cut it completely in two. Or three for that matter. For that we must defer to Himself. What he presents here is not ‘opinion’, coloured so as to conform to a context of allegiance, nor interpretation influenced by surmise. Here we have evidence, pure and simple - evidence conveniently shunted into a siding by all those who cannot bear to confront the truth, and largely undervalued by others unduly concerned with the incessant regurgitation of garnish so often first coughed up by ‘a source close to something or other’.

Law enforcement agencies, crime writers and Hollywood film producers are all perfectly aware that the crux of any crime resides at the point of commencement, when the perpetrator, however practised they may be, is most likely to have made a mistake. The disappearance of Madeleine McCann involved circumstantial criminals who did exactly that. To appreciate what these data are telling us therefore, it is necessary to discard the shroud that has been thrown over them in the intervening years and look afresh at what has been staring at us all from the outset. 

How likely is it that two people can be independently mistaken about an open or shut situation? How likely is it that these same two people should independently, yet simultaneously, decide to ‘prune’ their respective cell ‘phone memories? How likely is it also that two different dogs, on two separate occasions, could show interest in different, yet mutually corroborating, scents, and at the very same loci?

These are the fundamental issues addressed here, and for which various bizarre, unrealistic, even childish explanations have been proffered over time – as knowledge for the undiscerning. If instead we open our eyes to another’s insight, it soon becomes apparent that the origins of, and explanations for, many of the reputedly paradoxical phenomena associated with the case of Madeleine McCann do indeed reside at the very beginning. - Martin Roberts

Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted

Should I so desire, I could lay before you, anomalies related to this case, by the score. As equally by the score, I could inundate you with unanswered questions. But that is not my intention here today. Rather, I present just three, but extremely important questions for your consideration.

But these three chosen questions are not exclusively for your perusal, they are in fact directed at what I shall call the McCann Establishment, or for ease here on in, the Establishment.

That the Establishment now includes the Prime Minister David Cameron, who, as a result of pressure by Rebecca Brooks, pressure being a polite word for coercion, as coercion is for blackmail one must say, is for the intents of this post, quite academic.

As for the involvement of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, that involvement becomes a good deal less academic, given the Home Secretary's overall responsibility for the policing of the Nation. Granted that some of that responsibility is now diminished since the introduction of police and crime commissioners, a system laid bare to justifiable charges of nepotism, I easily add. But that is by the by and concerns us little, for there was no such office at the time of initiating a "review" of the Madeleine McCann case by DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard's finest. Something, I think I can maintain, that is unique in the history of English policing. But that uniqueness is far from alone, as we shall see.

Nice company Home Secretary.

Is it not unique, that in the case of a missing child, presumed dead by the investigating police force and for good reason, that when the very cornerstone of the McCann's claim for a case of stranger abduction, turns out to be a tissue of lies, but is then seemingly ignored by those charged with this nonsensical review?

The McCanns set the parameters.

Before we had even heard the name Madeleine McCann, the script had been written, distributed, and was being learned by rote, albeit to an embarrassing degree, by seemingly every member of the McCann's extended family and various friends. The source of which, and undeniable, Kate and Gerry McCann.

"The shutters had been jemmied and poor wee Madeleine was taken." echoed every family member, with  unwavering similarity. The First Reactions

Update: Pennies from heaven.

Meanwhile, Madeleine's uncle, John McCann, from Glasgow, countered criticism from those who say the couple were wrong to leave their children alone in the holiday apartment while they ate dinner at a nearby restaurant.
"If you look at the layout of that place, it was entirely safe. The issue at stake here was, that the flat was broken into, and wee Madeleine was abducted," he told BBC Radio Five Live. BBC online

Only the shutters weren't jemmied, and wee Madeleine was not taken.

Cause and Effect

So let us look at such.

"The shutters had been jemmied" cause.

"and poor wee Madeleine was taken" effect.

I hardly need to say it do I? No cause, no effect.

It is that simple and so fundamental to the McCann's claim of abduction. No jemmied shutters, no abduction.

Never forgetting, the jemmied shutters story was not some wrongly evaluated, mistaken concept, it was orchestrated by the parents of the missing child. The First Reactions

 As simple as that may sound, it is in fact, of such profundity that it cannot, and should not, be ignored. The cornerstone for abduction, and all that surrounds it, is a house of cards. A house that took a shift years ago. The only thing propping it up now, is the litigious nature of the McCanns. Not forgetting of course, the wilful blindness of the Establishment whose reputation and roll in this sordid affair would hardly stand the scrutiny that would be so deserved. 

Now call me old fashioned if you will, but this bothers me. But it bothers me more, that this fundamental and crucial component of this case, not only remains unaddressed, but seemingly, is totally ignored.

To finish up this part of the post, there being two other fundamental issues I wish to address, let me try and apply some perspective to this staggering and blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice.

If our featured two were suspected of robbing a Post Office, and it's not by accident that I use a PO as an example, because, you may be surprised to know, there is no greater crime in the UK than making an unauthorised withdrawal from said establishment.

So if our two suspects, under questioning, uttered the kind of testament or set in motion testament such as we have witnessed, what might you suppose, the outcome would be?

Parts two and three will be delivered when and whenever, creativity and the will to write are pretty rare commodities for me these days.

But do bare in mind, should you come under attack, from whatever quarter: No jemmied shutters, no abduction. And also remember who set the parameters, within which, enabled the child to be "abducted," the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.

Part Two, The Deleted Phone Logs

 Are they such an important issue you may ask? Well they were important enough for the McCanns to lie about them, so they must be.

 That we have already ascertained in part one, the setting up with family members the case for abduction, the deleted phone logs, selectively deleted I must add, and at a time, the day before in fact, of Gerry McCann's announcement to the world that his daughter had been abducted. Via of course, the jemmied shutters that weren't  

What follows, is the only section of this article where some parts are not provable, but given the circumstances, let us take a look at the situation circumstantially.

The speed, or should I call it indecent haste? (and being all the more suspicious for it)  The indecent haste with which the McCann Machine (Government machine) rolled into action was, putting it mildly, quite staggering.

I think at this moment, I shall let the Portuguese coordinator of the case, Goncalo Amaral, take over the narrative. This on the 4th of May

GA:  At ten in the morning, twelve hours after the disappearance, the British Consul to Portimão goes to the Department of Criminal Investigation.

We inform him of the actions taken up to then and the next stages being considered. He doesn't seem satisfied.

Someone hears him on the telephone saying that the police judiciaire are doing nothing. Now, that's strange! Why that untruth? What objective does he have in mind? Giving another dimension to the case? Perhaps, I don't know a thing about it, but this is not the time for conjecture; we have to concentrate on our work, of finding the little girl.

Why indeed?

A little later still on the 4th May John Buck, British Ambassador to Portugal, descends on the scene.

GA- The McCanns are put up with David Payne.

We want to search the accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins.

Evidently, this initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with the team directing the investigation. The political and the diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work.

GA- I'm sure this check is necessary.

JB- The clothes? Are you mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment to take clothes to have them analysed?

GA- Yes. What's the problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this.

JB- Of course, but with this media hype...I don't think I have ever in my life seen so many journalists....And I didn't come down in the last shower.

I leave you to arrive at your own conclusions regarding that little nest of vipers.

To the phone logs then.

To fully understand the importance of this clip, one has take into account, that having just fled Portugal, the McCanns feel free to tell all the lies they wish and to do so with impunity. Never realising of course, to just what degree the files of the investigation would be made available to the public once the investigation was shelved.

Gerry and Kate McCann's fury after 14 texts slur

Gerry McCann reacted angrily yesterday to claims he received a string of mystery texts the day before his daughter vanished.
Police applied to Portugal's supreme court to seize his phone records after learning of the alleged messages.
They claim Gerry was sent 10 texts from an unknown number 24 hours before Madeleine disappeared.
And detectives say four messages arrived from the same mystery number the day after she went missing, according to court documents.
But Gerry and wife Kate have dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish".
A source close to them said: "They have had their phone records available for inspection for months. But the police never asked for them. And now they have formally asked, they have been refused.
"Any suggestion of Gerry receiving 10 texts the day before Madeleine disappeared are utter rubbish.
"He hardly used his phone during the holiday and most of the friends with them didn't even have mobiles.
"The only time his phone rang was when work called and he explained he was on holiday. There are no mystery texts. Gerry has nothing to hide. It's yet more nonsense coming from Portugal." more


More on the deleted phone records from Paulo Reis, a worthy read.

So from whom, and what was the content of the fourteen texts messages that Gerry McCann selectively deleted and subsequently found the need to lie about?

It is my personal opinion that 90% of the answers to this case are inseparably linked to the source of said deleted text messages.

Just one last question and then we shall move on. A question you might ask yourself for that matter.

Would Gerry McCann have the wherewithal to implement and carry out such hair-brained scheme as the one we have witnessed without the gears being set in motion by third parties of no little importance or influence?

Part Three, Cadaver Odour.

Disregarding the thousands of column inches that have been written on the subject. Disregarding the thousands of arguments for the accuracy of the dogs' alerts and to a lesser degree, the arguments against the importance of said findings, and quite shamelessly by some that, not should know better, but do know better, we have but a few things to consider.

Originally upped as "large." But I think twenty five year career cop, Jim Gamble, justifies extra large.

Firstly, two irrefutable facts. No one had previously died in the McCann's holiday apartment, likewise nobody had previously met their end in the car hired by the McCanns.

Keeping in mind, that all that has been written about the dogs, for the purpose of this article, and for the sake of my argument, we shall ignore.

What we can't ignore however, are two simple facts, but by virtue of their simplicity, they do in fact become the most damning.

You may wish to remember, that the dogs alerted uniquely to things McCann without exception. On the other hand, you may choose to ignore these facts. It doesn't matter. And why doesn't it matter you may well ask?

It doesn't matter, because Kate McCann acknowledges the existence of both blood residue and cadaver odour, both in the hire car and on her own clothes.

The reasons for such we are asked to believe, range from rotting meat in the car (odour) to the transporting, however unlikely, dirty nappies of the twins. (DNA)

Regarding the cadaver odour on  Kate McCann's clothes, what we are asked to believe is even more unlikely than the dirty nappies explanation. So unlikely in fact, it staggers the imagination.

The reason for Kate McCann's clothes smelling of cadaver, we are incredulously asked to believe, is that prior to the ill fated holiday in Praia da Luz, Kate McCann, as a part time locum in a general practice, came in contact with cadavers. Any number of them, depending on which source you read.

But that's not all we are asked to believe, she came into contact with said cadavers wearing her holiday clothes. And if you like that cake, I have some topping for it, she took Madeleine's soft toy, Cuddle Cat, along with her for the ride.

How hard to confirm or deny this, DCI Andy Redwood?

And of course, not only does Kate McCann acknowledge the existence of cadaver odour, but her husband too, Gerry McCann. Why else would he go to such lengths (America) to discredit the accuracy of the dogs?

And it was to such lengths he went, contacting lawyers in the US and quoting the Eugene Zapata case where the judge wouldn't accept as evidence, the alerts of the dogs.

How did that one work out for you Gerry McCann? Not too good when the Zapata eventually admitted to killing his wife and the subsequent revelations that the dogs were right all along.

How damning do the actions of the parents have to be? Madeleine McCann disappeared in the most controversial circumstances imaginable, and the last two people to see here alive, and statistically the most likely people to be involved in that disappearance, the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, are doing their utmost to explain or discredit the stench of death that surrounds them. 

I'm sorry, not in my world. Madeleine McCann was not abducted.

For Brenda Leyland RIP

All issues mentioned here are searchable and verifiable.

For Martin Roberts. Catherine Meyer


Anonymous said...

A great post. And what a footnote from Operation Grange.

Redwood presented 'Smithman' to the world as a top "suspect". Why would he do that?

The Smith family sighting remains today exactly what it was in 2008: an investigative lead. No amount of belated corroboration (or contradiction) changes what Smith had to say about the identity on the person he thinks he saw. What more could Redwood be looking for?

The answer came in the Met's response to the appeal: several names had been put forward.
*Several names*....which is nice. Saves a trip to Rothley.

This wasn't ever a review, let alone now an investigation. It is wholesale revisionism for public consumption.

Operation Grange leaves no stone unturned. Even those most embarrassing of details (the dogs and Smithman) have been returned to, under glaring publicity.

Regrettably for "Kate and Gerry" answers have not been forthcoming. But at least the public can be reassured that no expense is spared.

We had five forensics experts (no less) flown across to Portugal to have a chat with their counterparts (scientific institutes are clearly bereft of conference calls or emails). It was fortunate that Redwood had his official photographer on hand for the "event". How else could we have known that everything is being done? Or rather, redone.

No: Rehashed.

tigger said...

I'd gladly pay for the collected works of Dr. Roberts as an e-book? Could help Nigel too perhaps.

As Bertie often says to Jeeves ' others abide our question, thou art free'

What is the date of this piece? I definitely missed it and want to send it to some people in print - unfortunately have some luddite friends for whom the internet is a devilish invention.

Himself said...

Let us for a moment consider a possible maybe-perhaps. One I have only recently considered.

Redwood is offered the poison chalice and he's pissed, pissed right off.

He dicks around for three years, until his retirement is at hand.

He has a fuck you moment on crimewatch, dropping the efits straight into the McCann's laps.

At the same time he destroys Tanner's sighting, but replaces it with a story so full of holes and improbabilities that, at risk to himself, but equally the investigation, both become a laughing stock.

Come the time, (retirement) Redwood says, fuck you chaps, I'm off, you sort it out.

And the likelihood of such a scenario?

Answers at best, on a postcard, or alternatively, on a postage stamp.

Himself said...

Original article.

October 22, 2014

There is also this, and exclusive to this blog.

Taking Stock: Dr Martin Roberts (Why Op Grange is a crock)

tigger said...

Great! Thanks. We're into the fourth successive government (nearly) and the MSM are still pumping out the usual rubbish.
It's been an education in mass-control to watch it.

Yet Makinka was made an arguido not long ago. I winder if it is goung to be a 'secret de polichinelle' (sort of Punch and Judy show, early internet you might say) i.e. Absolutely everybody will know TM is in it up to its collective neck, but no official case is made against them.

Anonymous said...

Himself @ 14.03
Yep, a distinct possibility.

Either way it was nonsense. Was Redwood hoping for an 8 year late corroboration (perhaps another Crechedad style coma victim stirred into life)? "Oh yes, I saw Dr McCann lugging a dead child around PdL. Is that important?" Go down well in court.

And despite any other names that might have been err 'offered', the Smith sighting still stands.

I think it stands in Rothley BTW.

Himself said...

I left comments here today. I suppose they encompass our discussion and core beliefs.

Well certainly mine.

Anonymous said...

Yes, impossible to disagree with anything said there. (I tried leaving a comment but it seemed to whoosh somewhere. I'll try again sometime.)
You're right, it isn't necessarily a popular view to take of judicial process; but a grounded realism has to hold more potential for progress than empty wishes. It isn't a question of being defeatist, but of trying to create conditions of accountability. At least that's how I see it.

I think that the truth will one day be told, a truth beyond contest. Too many people know.

tigger said...

I have tried to post there under this avatar several times. My comments are routinely whooshed. Polite posts and questions.

Personally I find the posts a rehash of various forum discussions by others . If one is going to post on the McCs
it is as well to have a working knowledge of the case, such as that given by Dr. Martin Roberts.

guerra said...

What did Mr. Redwood accomplish? He let the public know that after examining the case files he concluded that the McCanns and their Tapas friends are not suspects. He gave credence to Mrs. McCann's claims that young girls had been targeted in the Algarve before Madeleine had disappeared. He gave credibility to Jane Tanner by claiming that she actually saw someone, a dad carrying his child back from the creche. To summarise he disparaged the conclusions of the original investigators.

I believe Mr. Redwood was expecting more from the Portuguese than they had already provided. And when he saw that that extra cooperation wasn't forthcoming he left because he realised there was no credible way of ending the so called investigation.

The Portuguese always said that they would reopen the case if there was significant evidence. I very much doubt that Mr. Euclides Monteiro, a man who was dismissed from the Ocean Club, a year before Madeleine disappeared, for supposedly stealing 5 Euros, is significant evidence. The evidence is flimsy at best. It seems to me that Mr. Monteiro fulfilled a purpose, i.e. an ostensible reason to reopen the case so that they would be able to chaperone Mr. Redwood and company while they went about their endeavours in Portugal.

Do you remember the articles that started appearing in the English papers about a man who, according to Scotland Yard, had been sexually molesting young English girls in the Algarve for years? What was strange about all this was that these incidents, which were growing in number by the day in the English papers, weren't documented. And local authorities from where these incidents were purported to have taken place were perplexed, having no recollection of anyone coming forward with a complaint. Of course I'm only speculating but could this have been an attempt by Scotland Yard to pressure Portuguese authorities to acquiesce to their demands?

It's all quiet right now, possibly the powers that be are waiting for the judges' decision before they act to bring the so called investigation to an end.

Anonymous said...

And what about this dad that Tanner saw?

Despite having a daughter around Madeleine's age, and despite holidaying at the epicentre of this global drama, he remained indifferent to 8 years worth of appeals.

Of course he knew exactly what he and his daughter were wearing that night (held in cold storage). How amazingly attentive this man must be to such small details, whilst spectacularly missing the big picture of an "abducted" child.

His daughter just happened to be dressed in nighwear that could easily be mistaken for that of Madeleine, and on that very night too.

Naturally the nightwear was on display for Tanner to see. It was a chilly night. The father wears a brushed cotton shirt, fleece and heavy shoes. The daughter is left to the though it was she who had been snatched from a bed.

Who would have guessed?

Not Jane Tanner, at least not immediately, because of course she didn't want to worry anyone.

And this man carries his little girl as though he was serving a tray of cold hors d'Oeuvres! Or some other dead weight. No warm cuddles...oh no, and make sure Tanner sees the pyjamas.

Lead detectives don't need to explain themselves, they can make appeals without necessarily spelling out the whys and wherefores. But Redwood was desperate to do this big show and tell wasn't he? Coincidentally exonerating Tanner.

Up until this revelation moment, he and his team had of course been compelled by Tanner's sighting. Just read her statements, look at the changing efits, and wonder: how likely is that? For three long years they had never questioned the value (err truth) of what she "saw"?

I know, I know, it's all been said before.

Himself said...

It's all been said before.

But not often covering all the salient points so concisely.

Redwood could not afford to diminish Tanner's sighting without removing another cornerstone on which the McCann's claim for abduction was built.

Something he was ill prepared to do, given the obvious parameters of his remit.

The other, being of course, the jemmied shutters that weren't. (conveniently overlooked these days)

Redwood needs to replace Tannerman, but with what?

With something so gor fucking blimey! that it almost takes your breath away. Include all you have said above with the fact that Crechedad would have been walking in the exact opposite direction to Tannerman, had he come from the creche.

With each passing day, the workings of Redwood's (tiny?) mind becomes ever more enigmatic.

Was he as thick as I first believed him, or was he, in a far from subtle way, rebelling against his obvious instructions from above and turning the whole thing into the circus that was, and still is?

Which brings us back to DCI Wall, where does she go from here?

But I fancy I know where she won't go, she won't be going where she shows Redwood's three years and millions of pounds was a total crock, and at the same time bringing down the multitude of "names" that have so perversely aligned themselves with the villains of the piece, the parents.

How can I be so sure? Try this tweet and photo.

Anonymous said...

Ha, what a cosy picture they make.

I'd speculate along with Guerra. Closure might be sooner rather than later The longer Wall stays with it the more deeply mired she becomes. At least at this stage they've got the corporate yadda of "fresh thinking" bollocks.

The more I think about Redwood, you could be right: he went out flailing.

guerra said...

I think a lot of people have so much trust in authority figures that when Mr. Redwood revealed that the Tanner sighting was a father carrying his daughter back from the creche they just accepted it as fact. It's obviously a lie.

The question I pose is what are the implications of a police officer, a man who is coordinating an investigation, inventing a person who doesn't exist? If we know it's a lie can we not assume that the McCanns also know it's a lie? Hypothetically, if this case were to proceed to trial, wouldn't the defence lawyers demand that creche dad testify, given the importance that their clients had given to the Tanner sighting? What then? Wouldn't this destroy Scotland Yard's credibility, it would be a massive blow to the prosecution would it not?

For me this "revelation moment" is the strongest indication that the objective of Operation Grange was never to produce a prosecutable case.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more. That has to be the conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Another gaping hole in this story is the reason Kate gave for the smell of cadaver being on her holiday trousers. She was working as a part-time locum in the Rothley area, and said she was present at six deathbeds in the week before the holiday.
Surely, even in the 19th century, any detective would have gone to the local surgery (or the coroner's office/newspaper obituary dept/undertakers) and found out a) how many local people had died in that time and b)if Kate had attended and certified the deaths herself.
There is no excuse for letting her strange assertion to continue unchallenged, unproved.

Himself said...

guerra 28 February 2015 at 18:19

You might find consolation in that the inimitable Dr Roberts, agrees with you entirely.

Should you wish, you can find Dr Roberts' essays here.

Current, but you will have to scroll for them.


More in the sidebar

Himself said...

5 March 2015 at 19:13

As I make mention in the article.

But that's not all we are asked to believe, she came into contact with said cadavers wearing her holiday clothes. And if you like that cake, I have some topping for it, she took Madeleine's soft toy, Cuddle Cat, along with her for the ride.

How hard to confirm or deny this, DCI Andy Redwood?

Or put another way.

tigger said...

But cuddlecat had no cadaver scent on him on the evening of 3/5/07. Same for the pink blanket. Dogs did not alert to any of the beds, transferred scent would have been present. See February.

guerra said...

Hi Himself, it's frustrating knowing that so many people refuse to see what's before them, but it's nice to know that someone of the stature of Dr. Roberts, whose essays I enjoy reading, concurs with some of my opinions. Thank you for letting me know.

Himself said...

You're most welcome. Stay around.

Anonymous said...

Words are beginning to fail me.

Redwood was trying (with very little success) to systematically cleanse the perception of guilt that hangs over from Amaral's investigation.

Tanner's "sighting" is so fucking implausible that he was obliged to contrive some way of removing it from the affair. He had to exonerate her into the wings. There was no way on earth that sticking with bundleman was ever going to serve the long term purpose of his remit. It was too fucking stupid, and the timeline was too narrow.

With bundleman gone...enter Smithman. How to "deal" with Smithman? Do you:

1. Open up the sighting to global speculation and thereby guarantee the widest possible catchment for new names; simultaneously demonstrating your willingness to deal with every possible skeleton in the PJ's cupboard.


2. Go to Rothley (no publicity) and question the fucker that the Smith's named.

What would a proper policeman do?

The Met are cornered. Either they end this indeterminately, or they become so bereft of options that the politics of the situation are made to shift.

The fact that the Portuguese authorities appear to have had an attitude of "thus far...but no further" (much as Guerra has said) offers some small hope I think. They are not compromised by Redwood's bullshit. Their door is still ajar to reality. (Extradition and a panel of judges.)

The very worst scenario to imagine is the fairyland contortion of a smokescreen "ploy".

Himself said...

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments, so refreshing after twitter.

Something else you may wish to consider?

Has Redwood deliberately sabotaged any future trial of the McCanns by his abuse of process, in declaring the McCanns are not suspects?

Original tweet.

Links I sent to Martin R.

The case in question.

Shorter Wiki.

Longer: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary PDF

There is of course a slight difference in the terminology. Downey was told he would not face trial, whereas the Mcs were told they were not suspects.

I don’t know what a defence lawyer would make of that difference, but I’m sure he would be aware of the Downey ruling.

Input and correction. Martin R

As I read it, Downey was not even guaranteed immunity from prosecution, only informed that (at the time of writing) there were no warrants for his arrest originating in either Ireland or mainland UK. As far as the McCanns are concerned any suggestion that Redwood's disclaimer was not 'formal', i.e., not part of a written confirmation (as in a letter) must surely be outweighed by the fact of his having made the statement on camera and on behalf of Police authorities.

And that, my man, gives rise to a rather sinister thought: 'They are not suspects' occurred early doors (as they say in the football world). Crechedad cropped up at half-time. I wonder, given the apparent significance of both within this same context, whether these were deliberate infusions, and whether, in fact, we might spot one or two more if we look very carefully.

I think I might just put my mind to that possibility.

tigger said...

From the link:
A man accused of killing four soldiers in the 1982 IRA Hyde Park bombing will not be prosecuted because he was given a guarantee he would not face trial. It follows a judge's ruling that an official assurance given in error meant John Downey's prosecution is "an abuse of process".[7]

' given in error' surely no such guarantee has been given the McCanns?
Personally I've never expected to see the McCs in the dock for the absence of their first-born. But the Fund is their weak spot imo. The collusion of the MSM enabled them to engineer sightings and suspects to keep feeding the Fund. However, the Fund hasn't done what it said it would do, there must be a money trail, rather more precise accounts - even, as Dr. Roberts pointed out once to Transworld, all the monies received from the book to go on the search for Madeleine.
'They've got nothing!' Said GM when made arguido, worthy, as Blacksmith said, of a Glasgow hood in trouble.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting, and a lot to digest! (Sorry, a long comment here!)

The letter states: "..*on the basis of the information currently available*, there is no outstanding direction for prosecution...questioning or charge by the police."

And this explicit reference to "currently available" was judged to be adequately prejudicial even years later. ie. It was so then, so it shall be now!?

Whether information was "missed" either by error or by design appears moot to me. The judgement is worded with regard to the assurances received by Downey, not their origin. It does seem bizarre though. At the very least you`d have to say that (hypothetically) Redwood has presented another seam at which a defence might pick.

It`s also interesting to consider who Redwood was speaking for at the time. Was he speaking in support of the PJ who "retain the lead" (And this *remains* the explicit description of the Met`s position)? Or was he just tossing up a leader for the Daily Mirror: something that he knew was never going to be tested by the reality of a British court?

He was in no position to speak for the PJ; but he was certainly in a position to raise the stakes between them! (wretched politics)

It is a fallacy to suggest that the stories of a division between the Met and the PJ are all of McMedia origin. The strongest suggestions have actually come from the Met themselves. We`ve had Hogan-Howes` public appeals for a Joint Investigation. He was unable to recall exactly what Operation Grange was (that thing consuming 30 of his detectives!), but knew well enough that he wanted more from the Portuguese authorities. Can you imagine the briefings? "The just won`t play ball..."

We`ve also had Redwood`s 2013 appeal for information from British tourists. He advised people to come forward even if they had already spoken to the PJ, because "they mustn`t assume that the information has been passed to them." Classy.

The point that Martin Roberts makes about all of this verbose media activity is central I think.

"...any suggestion that Redwood's disclaimer was not 'formal', i.e., not part of a written confirmation (as in a letter) must surely be outweighed by the fact of his having made the statement on camera and on behalf of Police authorities."

How often I`ve struggled to say this!

At the time of the last Rogatory circus, I remember reading a comment on Joana Morais` blog. It said: "...this is only a farce if you take it all seriously."

How in hell`s name do you respond to that?

For a start there is the human cost for those poor sods paraded into Faro police station; and then, as Martin Roberts says, there are those "infusions" that make there way into the case: faux suspects, faux crime sprees (explcitly linked by Redwood, but completely unjustified.)

Redwood`s 2013 appeal looked like an almighty infusion to me! These "suggested" attacks on English speaking girls opens up another seam. Whether or not you and I "take it seriously", I think we can be fairly sure that a lawyer might. We have another little seam of doubt: were the PJ deliberately remiss? Was the phantom ever caught?

As I said some threads ago, Redwood wasn`t ruling scenarios out, he was ruling them in. He was also cynically exploiting his assumed authority over Portuguese jurisdiction and the recording of crimes against children.

Should we have expected better from the Met? You can`t simply strip this away as a "smokescreen", and then expect something pristine beneath it. It's a mess of deliberate making I think.

Himself said...

There's no attribution for this, but I shall leave it nevertheless.

Himself said...

Via email, Martin Roberts.

Just a follow-up to the 'Abuse of Process' discussion.

Redwood's 'not suspects' declaration is so uncharacteristic of any missing persons investigation as to be 'suspect' in itself. I do not recall any such observation being made in relation to, say, Claudia Lawrence, the Kular infant, more recently Rebecca Watts, nor indeed Shannon Matthews.

Public statements by investigating officers are made with a view to furthering the investigation or else they are not made at all. A McCann supporter might well argue that Redwood's observation served exactly that purpose, narrowing the search, as it were. In which case it must be taken as a genuine reflection of the status quo, and would therefore have been interpreted as such by all who have heard it, including, of course, the McCanns themselves.

By the by (and in support of Anonymous' later observations on the subject) whereabouts in the Grange 'remit' should one look for authorisation in respect of branching out to 'investigate' supposed sexual assaults committed within the Portuguese Algarve? Was that paragraph redacted? The more likely interpretation, as originally suggested by Anonymous, is that those mysterious (as in previously unreported) attacks had fuck all to do with anything, much less 'point zero' and the imaginary abduction of Madeleine McCann.

What about fraud?

What indeed. A fraud case brought by the CPS would needs be based on financial evidence assembled by the Serious Fraud Office. However, it would first have to be conclusively demonstrated, with recourse to police evidence, that MM was not abducted. Tricky (and made the more so by Redwood's introduction of crechedad), but not impossible. It would follow from 'non abduction' that the child is dead and that the parents must know the circumstances in which she died. But 'neither of the McCanns nor any of their friends are suspects', are they. So, at a stroke, Redwood has torpedoed that vessel also. On the face of it a prosecution for fraud would not get beyond first base IMO.

guerra said...

When one tries to explain unusual behaviour on the part of public officials one risks being labelled a conspiracy theorist. I will take that risk and say that, in my eyes, a nation deemed it necessary to allocate resources to conduct an international public relations campaign on behalf of the parents of missing child, under the guise of an investigation. Why? Don't know.

Anonymous said...

Himself, Martin,
thanks for the response. And of course many thanks for the space to discuss this. The travesty of what has unfolded becomes so apparent.
Along with Guerra I'm resolved to the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist!!
There is a train of thought that says it is "events" that most often conspire to bring an outcome, and not people. It strikes me as being a very (very!) remote chance that events could conspire so decisively as to bring justice in this case. But the fear of 'what may yet happen' explains every media stroke that they try to pull. What a way to live.

Anonymous said...

Just to stretch this thread a little further, a comment on Pat Brown`s blog prompted these thoughts:

Amongst the many questions that might (hypothetically) be raised in a court there would be Redwood`s cursory dismissal of all "conspiracy theories".

Questions to AR:

1 What did you mean by that expression?

2 Whose conjectured involvement in this crime would, in your opinion, constitute a "conspiracy theory"?

3 What evidence had you lighted upon that would rule out the possibility of the above?

4 Was the constraint of the remit designed to preclude such theories?

5 Who authored that remit?

6 How does this reflect upon your declaration that the parents (T9) are not suspects?

7 Is it your understanding that these "theories" pertained only to parental involvement or might they involve other public figures (rightly or wrongly)?

8 Which figures?

9 Again: Who authored the remit?

10 At what stage did you question the remit`s viability?

And then, presumably, the trial would continue merrily along.

It's like trying to put the genie back inside the bottle.
Just a thought!


Anonymous said...

Where are the original sources for the claim that Kate McCann stated she took her Cuddle Cat to work with her sometimes and that cadaver scent on her clothes could be due to the fact that she had been in contact with dead bodies?

tigger said...

Cuddlecat and the visits to the mortuary stories (hmm should be in book-form with pictures for bed-time reading?) came from that found of knowledge: the McCann family, I believe Philomena, the Glaswegian Oracle.

Anonymous said...

12 million of tax payers' money and not a clue. Newspaper headline today.
Looks like they're ready to call it a day and hope we all just forget about it and get on with our lives.

Anonymous said...

@ tigger................''I'd gladly pay for the collected works of Dr. Roberts as an e-book? Could help Nigel too perhaps ......''
Me too.