Tuesday, January 05, 2016

Trust Me, I'm a Metropolitan Police Officer

L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun takes a look at Crechedad

Inspector Clod of the Yard (retired)

Same Kinda Clothes

. . . . At what stage did this guy (crechedad) go to the Leicestershire Police in the UK and tell them that he believed he was the person who Jane Tanner had seen carrying a child?

Much as I thought it odd that this guy had preserved the actual clothes he had been wearing on that night, I find it much more odd, that the clothes he is wearing in the above picture were in fact NOT those same clothes.

So were did he get them? Metropolitan Police provide them for him?

Makes it all the more FISHY!

Met were hardly going to supply him with an outfit that did not match the McCanns sketch, a sketch we are told was based on their buddy Jane Tanner's sighting!

Well, now you can knock me down with a feather, because that rather changes an already outrageous story! . . . . My! What a lot of questions.

Hat tip and lizard love, Maren.

News from Portugal

A new disgrace in the €16.4 million police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has erupted in the British media.

It now appears that the Operation Grange ‘Maddie probe’ has involved the hiring of private investigators from firms that were actually being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for “allegedly overcharging” the British government.

According to a report in the Sunday Times, both firms were under suspicion of putting in bogus charges for the electronic tagging of released prisoners who were either “dead, back in prison or had fled the country”.

One of the companies, G4S, has “since repaid more than €130 million to the Treasury” over the scandal, but it is still another low moment for the Metropolitan Police which has come under enormous criticism for spending so much money on the Maddie investigation over the past eight-plus years, without coming up with one single charge or provable theory.

According to stories in the media today, “up to 81 officers from private security firm G4S were recruited to assist Operation Grange - even though at one stage 31 detectives were assigned to work on the case full-time”. more

Si M said

A G4S Director/Share Holder is married to Home Secretary Theresa May, so this is effectively laundering of British government money( ie TAX PAYERS money) supposedly put aside to hunt for girl whom all the evidence suggests died in Praia De Luz. SCAM!

Security firm G4S has vehemently denied that Theresa May’s husband has any involvement with it, following claims on this blog and many, many others. more

Theresa May Home Secretary Known Associate of Kate McCann


Martin Roberts said...

The 'Find Madeleine' website persists with an invitation to believe in an impossible abductor, whom only Jane Tanner saw. Except she didn’t really. He was a hapless holiday-maker, who just happened to be crossing the street ahead of the inquisitive Ms T, and with a child in his arms, at exactly the time that the McCanns’ own ‘suspect’ was doing the very same thing! Shouldn’t Jane have reported seeing double therefore?

If however we believe, like the McCanns, that ‘crechedad’s’ arrival on the scene and that of Jane Tanner’s ‘sighting’ were separated by even a moment in time, then we have to ask why DCI Redwood should have been sufficiently convinced of their identity as to discount Jane Tanner’s sighting completely. We also have to explain how Jane Tanner’s vision of ‘not crechedad’ managed to emerge from the front of apartment 5A, never mind how he got in.

On 15 May, 2007, Rachael Oldfield (nee Mampilly) told police: "The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter."

In her own book (‘madeleine’) Kate McCann states: "For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door."

We know for a fact that no abductor emerged from the rear of the apartment while the ‘two jezzers’ were talking in the street outside. The bedroom window shutters also were undisturbed, except by the McCanns themselves. That leaves the front door, and the possibility, according to Kate McCann, that ‘the abductor had a key.’

David Payne pours cold water on that one. As he explained in his rogatory interview:

"...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was only one key to the apartment."

And no, he didn’t have a duplicate or he would have used it to get in, and out if necessary, and Gerry McCann’s never-to-be-repeated story, told to Control Risks Group, about his inadvertently leaving the front door key on the kitchen counter that night would have been surplus to requirements.

But why should an intruder have needed a key even, unless the front door was locked?

That, quite simply, is why the window story was invented in the first place, and why ‘crechedad’ came into being subsequently. For their part, the McCanns turned to the patio door (not the front door, notice) once the window option was revealed for the nonsense it was. They conveniently ignored the patio shutters.

A pity Rachael didn’t.

Himself said...

I'm late for my "shift" Martin, catch you later.

Anonymous said...

The 2014 canine episode in Luz with Redders was very silly, are we to believe the dogs (of the 2007 variety) indicated as many times as the amount of holes dug?

After all, beggar all was found.

Anonymous said...

26 October 2007


The artist has not been named, but she was described by the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, as an FBI-trained specialist. Mr Mitchell said the artist left the picture incomplete where Jane Tanner could not be certain of details to ensure accuracy.

The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell, an unnamed FBI-trained specialist, and Jane Tanner who could not be certain of details. And a picture that is far from incomplete.



Panorama - Mystery of Madeleine McCann - Nov 19/2007


At the 11:06 mark:

"Richard Bilton: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you could see.

Jane Tanner: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... the feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.

Richard Bilton: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl?

Jane Tanner: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. It was actually quite cold."

I get the picture. M

Anonymous said...

Why did Andrew pose for the cameras wearing a suit whilst undertaking potentially gruesome fieldwork?

Anonymous said...

Remember well the Redwood's catchphrase, when he introduced crechedad COULD BE on the BBC's Crimewatch programme.

But like you have said, from where did crechedad spring? New information, or leads within the pile of files.

So after collating all the data to Holms software, the METs brainchild - press the button ZILTCH ... or ''could be'' crechedad.

Out of the window goes about five years of looking for Tannerman & a crime committed within a precise time slot of 9.20 McCanns check and 9.25 Tanner check and sighting. In comes crime committed at 9.45pm after MO's check on McCann children & Mrs McCann's check at 9.55\10pm. In comes Smith family sighting at 10pm which, like the Gaspars statements, seldom get a mention.

These are the facts, not speculation. What do they mean? Who knows.

So we can expect many more years to come of private investigators on the track of Smithman (aka Smith family sighting) which has a whole conspiracy theory of it's own. WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICIALLY RELEASED PORTUGUESE INVESTIGATION FILE.

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts 5 January 2016 at 14:59

Nice one, Martin, you reach farther than Heiniken. Thanks you.


Anonymous said...


From the 21:17 mark.

21:41 [Mr Redwood and a revelation moment.]

Andy Redwood: “One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception, and eight families had left 11 children in there. One particular family we spoke to gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact I would say it was a revelation moment when having discussed with them what they were doing on the night. They themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.”

Presenter: "The British father had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche. He had been walking near the McCanns’ apartment. This is the actual photograph, taken by Metropolitan Police officers of the man dressed in the kind of clothes he wore on holiday. This image was compared to the artist’s impression."

Andy Redwood: “It is uncannily similar, and we know the pyjamas that their child was wearing that it is again uncannily striking the similarities.”

At the 21:46 mark.

Isn’t it uncannily striking that one of the things that they did not pick up very quickly was the fact that the British father, who had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche, was walking towards the crèche?

rtgr @09:41



Martin Roberts said...

rtgr @09;41

Greetings, and thanks for your comments elsewhere, which, you will gather, have not gone unnoticed.

McCann mistake no.1 (as detailed above) = Insist upon the separation of JT's sighting from 'crechedad', when it is entirely demonstrable (and has been for years) that MM was not abducted at all.

McCann mistake no.2 = Being adamant that MM could not possibly have 'woken and wandered'.

Since Madelein was not the unwitting subject of some futuristic experiment in telekinesis, yet remains undiscovered, her parents MUST know what happened to her, although they have not been treated by Scotland Yard as 'Persons of interest' even, as far as the general public are aware.

As for Operation Grange, the outsourcing of sundry functions offers a vector for both expenditure AND blame when the recriminations begin, probably in the next financial year, once shutdown is announced on the grounds of economy (LOL).

The McCanns' announcement of another 'search' by as yet unidentified PI's also has a double benefit, the most obvious being a pre-emptive explanation for the abduction of another £750 from the fund. The second (and rather less obvious) benefit will be the McCanns at last being able to discover the extent of the evidence against them previously 'developed' by Leicester plod.

If you recall, they failed in an earlier court bid to gain access to the LP files. Operation Grange, however, hovered up all the documentary evidence as part of their initial review. They couldn't possibly deny the poor McCanns continuity in their resurrected private search, could they?

Of course they could if Operation Grange were legitimate, but what evidence do we have of that? Very little in my view, but appreciably more to the contrary.



Martin Roberts said...

Maren @12:05

"Andy Redwood: “It is uncannily similar, and we know the pyjamas that their child was wearing that it is again uncannily striking the similarities.”"

Neither Jane Tanner's sighting (as represented in the artist's sketch of a faceless abductor), nor the pyjamas belonging to crechedad's daughter displayed the conspicuous 'Eeyore' roundel at the bottom of the right leg.

As the Maths teacher told us at school many years ago, 'Similar' and 'congruent' are not the same thing.

"At the 21:46 mark.

"Isn’t it uncannily striking that one of the things that they did not pick up very quickly was the fact that the British father, who had collected his two-year-old daughter from the crèche, was walking towards the crèche?"

'Crimewatch' even had him holding the child the wrong way round!

Anonymous said...

Maren 6 January 2016 at 12:05
Martin 6 January 2016 at 12:29, 12:40

Dear Maren, I‘ve said it before and I say it again: you are fab! And all your remarks and links are fab!

Thank you, Martin, one would be well advised to contemplate all your comments, not just read, but contemplate, for, after all, precious wines are not drank but degustated, and degustation is contemplation’s first cousin. I have to confess that while others enjoy wine, I enjoy contemplating and falling asleep. Lazy they call me.

Nor am I a Heineken drinker, the misspelling therefore I can be forgiven for. A late good friend of mine, a vodka and Guinness man known in pubs as Tony ‘Guinness’, used to call all lagers piss. Having not tasted piss myself, I wouldn’t insist he was right.

No offence, Heineken drinkers.



Himself said...

Greetings all.

Initially I was going to ask you to scroll down to:

And for the record, the subject matter in the emails.

for a little about Jane, artists, et al. But you may want to read the full article to remind yourselves about the totally unacceptable behaviour of Leicester plod.


Anonymous said...

From: Gerry McCann
Sent: 16 January 2008 13:15
To: stuart prior

Subject: sketch

Stuart as discussed



Anonymous said...

rtgr 6.1 @16:05

Neither am I (a Heineken drinker), but phonetic spelling is considered to be a good sign for economical reasons (not totally off topic on second thought) as English is the world’s language.



Kind regards,


Anonymous said...

Maren 8 January 2016 at 09:14

You are always a delight to hear from, Maren.

I like a drink occasionally, but Heineken has never been my choice, though their line “Heineken reaches the parts other bears cannot reach” reached the heights others could not. What a line, a big favourite of mine, quite unlike “Mother and Child (Divided)” I might add.

As to Heineken, I hold that foreign names are to be respected in writing and pronunciation as far as possible.

I’ll drink your health today.

Kind regards and best wishes.



Having just checked my post referred to, I discovered with dismay a spelling error:
should be “…precious wines are not drunk but degustated…”. This I forgive myself for and I hope you and Martin also will. :-). Yes you will, yes you will, I know you will.

Anonymous said...

Maren 8 January 2016 at 14:35

And thanks for the links, Maren, love the commercials!

Kind regards.


Anonymous said...

May 16, 2010


Snapped inadvertently in the background of a holiday photo, the mysterious man strolls along after a rain shower, staring out to sea at Praia da Luz.

The picture was taken at the Portuguese resort days before Madeleine, then three, vanished during the evening of May 3, 2007.

Briton Gail Cooper was having lunch with family and friends in a beachside cafe and taking photos when she saw him wandering along the beach, apparently in a world of his own.


Mrs Cooper, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, said last night: “I am 98 per cent certain the man in the photo was the same man who made the strange visit to our holiday villa. His hair looks neater in the photo, but he is quite far in the background.” The picture was given to detectives in Leicestershire who are liaising with detectives in ­Portugal, but Mrs Cooper said she was never told whether the man had been identified.

Crèchedad made a strange visit to Mrs Cooper’s holiday villa?

Same Kinda Clothes



Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

anon @8 January 2016 at 21:32

Crèchedad made a strange visit to Mrs Cooper’s holiday villa?

Same Kinda Clothes

Surely not: daft link.


Anonymous said...

How convenient that Jane Tanner couldn’t see his face (and Cooperman's handlebar moustache. M

Himself said...

8 January 2016 at 23:53

A: Ah a whistleblower.*

B: It has been officially denied, ergo . . .

C: Not police integrity again, I got bleedin' integrity coming out me ears!


9 January 2016 at 07:27

Domestic extremist huh! How very Ameriki.**

*With the recent revelation of G4s's involvement in the case, my first thought was, more potential whistleblowers, though I fancy the Met would have kept the Pinkertons in the dark when it came down to the real nitty-gritty.

Which begs the question, what were they doing there in the first place?

**Domestic extremist I fancy we all meet the criteria for that label. Though must believe what thou art told; or else!

Himself said...

6 January 2016 at 20:46

From Gerry McCann

Date 22nd October 2007 8:14

To: Bob Small

Subject: Sketch


Stroll on!

Himself said...

Trust me I'm a Met police officer/social worker/pol


Anonymous said...


And (in my opinion) to give the McCanns, their helpers and Jane Tanner an easy way out since the created ‘abductor’ and the filling in of the Eeyore-like pyjamas, based on the child’s feet, the bottom of the pyjamas with a turn-up and a pinky aspect, was not that watertight after all. Neither was the creation of Crèchedad; somewhat sloppy, but possibly a way to protect Tannerman’s and the child’s real identity.

Fortunately, they still had Smithsman’s e-fits.

Although they corrected Smithsman’s carrying style as witnessed by the Irish family (compared to the McCanns’ own documentary), when it comes to the crunch, Smithsman cannot be Gerry carrying Madeleine, or so we might think. The girl wasn’t wearing Eeyore’s, but white long-sleeved pyjamas, as demonstratively shown in Crimewatch.

at 23:56 and 24:09

“We know the pyjamas that their child was wearing”, says Mr Redwood at 22:39, referring to Crèchedad’s daughter.

Does Mr Redwood (retired) know the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing or should I say, does he know the pyjamas she was not wearing?

Just thoughts you know.


Martin Roberts said...

Maren @10:11

My namesake's 'tweet', which you quote, is spot on, and aligns perfectly with two respected police members (Harrison and Grime) being exiled, plus the DCI in charge of the 'impossible investigation' retiring before any conclusion is arrived at (and yet people persist in believing the government/Met. are playing with a straight bat).

As to those pyjamas... therein we share a singular interest.

It struck me when they were first revealed (as no doubt it did you) that a pair of abducted pyjamas couldn't be expected to return for a photo shoot! So they became Amelie's.

However, I invite you to compare the size of the garments held aloft for the cameras with Amelie McCann's stature (she is pictured alongside her father on several occasions), bearing in mind that those clothes would have been purchased for her, as were Madeleine's (so we were told) the year before, when she was even smaller!

Unless strapped for cash and taking advantage of an irresistible bargain, parents do not buy pyjamas to fit their children in two or three years time. Kate McCann was not that desperate. She didn't forego Madeleine's designer label items did she?

Given the Grange remit, it is at least possible that Redwood et al have not paid attention to such details, and others that are even more damning. Or maybe that particular file is held in a tightly locked box!



Anonymous said...

Maren 12 January 2016 at 10:11
Martin Roberts 12 January 2016 at 12:05

Thank you.

An attempt to generalise:

No reconciliation of contradictory indications – no abduction.

Or more succinctly with the preceding line in mind:

No answers – no abduction!



Anonymous said...

Martin R. 12.1 @12:05

As you say.

Relatively big.


05 June 2007
McCanns in Crimewatch appeal


Smiling wanly, Mrs McCann looked down at the pyjamas in her lap and added:

"These are virtually identical, but these are little bit smaller because they are Amelie's."

Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’

“We were able to show a pair of pyjamas like Madeleine’s on the programme, which was particularly important since at the time it had been incorrectly stated in some press reports that her pyjamas were white.”

May 10, 2007
BBC news


“We passed on the accurate details of Madeleine's pyjamas, at the family's request, correcting the police's initial description”.

Who provided the initial description? Rhetorical.



Anonymous said...

Maren 13 January 2016 at 07:07


05 June 2007
McCanns in Crimewatch appeal


"Potentially this could have been someone who could have been picking up a child from a crèche…”

A crèchedad… Just keeping a spare iron in the fire or having an attack of incredible foresight, Gerry?


Anonymous said...

Hello rtgr

Yes, that statement struck me too.

In addition (same link)

Asked if he thought the suspect was the man who kidnapped his daughter, he said: "Potentially this could have been someone who could have been picking up a child from a creche or coming back from dinner."

Here we’d call it ‘De vermoorde onschuld spelen.’ (pretending to know nothing). ‘Playing injured innocense’ in English? Does it make any sense I wonder.

Perhaps I should say ‘The best defense is a good offense.’

That aside, “someone coming back from dinner” might be closer to the truth.


Anonymous said...

Maren 13 January 2016 at 10:21

To feign ignorance, be disingenuous, play possum come to mind in the order of preference. Martin is a walking(-the- dog) dictionary :-), he would know more. Myself, I would inject ‘hurt’ (since we’ve heard so about it) into ‘feign ignorance’ and would be thrilled with ‘to feign hurt ignorance’.

However, in the presence on this blog of those whose princely mastery of expression so often leaves me speechless, I ain’t gonna say no more. (I promise I’m not being facetious in the slightest, or Socratically ironic.)

You are Dutch then… When I first came across this blog, I thought you were Himself’s imaginary ‘White Goddess’, and only later did I realise that you could be other than she. That’s what I had in mind when I said “I’ll tell you another time” (or something similar) in one of my early posts.

“…picking up a child from a creche or coming back from dinner.

With a child in bedtime pyjamas (coming or going)? How odd can the English be!

What about the chill of the night? Wasn’t it St Fiona who put something on to keep herself warm? I see the argument that she foresaw being outside for a hours, whereas the child could have been expected to be in the cold for just a few minutes. But wouldn’t this argument be wrong?

The best defence is a good offence.

If there is such a thing as ‘best defence’, wouldn’t you rather say ‘the best defence is that which defends best’?

I am again contemplating the 2015 judgement. It seems so far that the judge had deemed only two questions crucial and ultimately answered both in plaintiffs’ favour (+ several other observations). Do you think it would be a good idea to have a discussion of the judgement on a separate thread?

Most grateful for your links and comments. Fab!

Kind regards.

Peace to all.


Anonymous said...


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id222.html Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview IV:

“I remember I was wearing, because it was cold, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces, so I’d got a big sort of fleece, it probably came down to about here…”

Therefore it should have been St Jane not St Fiona in my 13 January 2016 at 16:07 post.

My apologies.


Anonymous said...

rtgr 14.1 @15:15

Somehow you are right, because all Tapas Nine females said it was cold, quite cold, so cold and so windy. Kate even mentioned freezing in connection with a short sleeve top.

But as you say, it was Jane Tanner that thought of the shivering child whilst being ‘abducted’ by a “not a particularly good parent”, because she could see the child's feet.

Furthermore, we cannot even take for granted that the child Tanner saw was wearing pyjamas. There is no proof, only Tanner’s impression and the McCanns’ and their helpers’ interpretation. The child could just as well be wearing pants or leggings and a long sleeve shirt since Tanner couldn’t see the child’s arms, as far as I know.

It stands to reason that Crèchedad’s daughter was wearing pyjamas, but Crèchedad was walking in the wrong direction and there only is a picture of those pyjamas as some kind of evidence.



It is not altogether convincing, to say the least.


Himself said...

This comment seems to have got lost, so copied from email.

I particularly wanted to comment on this little gem at the end. I can't decide which epitomises the more, delusion or just plain old stupid.

By contrast, in the following weeks and months I would be subjected to cruel comments describing me as ‘cold’ and ‘poker-faced’. Had these critics not seen the television pictures? Or is it that people have short and selective memories?


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Public Anguish Was a False Front":



"ELA CONTROLA GERRY PARA VER SE ELE AGE CORRECTAMENTE", José Cabrera Forneiro, especialista espanhol em psiquiatria forense, acredita que Kate esconde algo Disse que Kate tem cara de poker. O que significa isso?

José Cabrera Forneiro – A expressão facial não diz tudo, mas diz algo sobre a pessoa. Significa que não manifesta o mínimo rasgo emocional, como um jogador de poker. Creio que esconde algo.

– Está a representar?

– Creio que sim. Desde que Maddie desapareceu mantém sempre a mesma cara séria. Sempre a olhar para o marido para ver se a actuação dele é correcta. Ela controla todas as expressões emocionais de Gerry. Ele, que aparentemente controla o casal, está a esconder algo que ela sabe e ele também já sabe.


26 October 2007


"When the time is right they will be taking action against anyone who they feel has overstepped the mark. It is good that Correio printed the name of the Spanish psychologist whose opinions they published. He is one more person on the list of people to sue." [said a friend of the McCanns]


Mr Cabrera was not their only critic. Portuguese criminologist Moita Flores, a former detective with the Policia Judiciaria, said: "The interview was a circus act.





Kate McCann in 'madeleine'

By contrast, in the following weeks and months I would be subjected to cruel comments describing me as ‘cold’ and ‘poker-faced’. Had these critics not seen the television pictures? Or is it that people have short and selective memories?

Anonymous said...

delusion or just plain old stupid

Or calculation? She (or whoever wrote or co-wrote that book) know(s) everything that has been written about them. She cannot avoid the 'poker-face' topic, just twists it in her favour, or so she thinks, knowing her audience (the twins included). “There are over 229 videos of Madeleine on it already and that's interesting.", said Gerry McCann in August 2007. Now there’s a lot more on the internet.

There is no mention of Cabrera (one more person on the list of people to sue) and Flores in her book, as far as I know.

Had these critics not seen the television pictures? Or is it that people have short and selective memories?

The irony.

Best wishes.


Anonymous said...



Melissa Lang said...

Jane Tanner's criticism of "creche dad" always baffled me. She's saying this man is a bad parent for failing to put socks on his kid's feet. Meanwhile, she saw this man because SHE was walking from the bar for a "check" on her own babies, who were being left alone and defenseless every night.