English Request to Portugal for Witnesses to be interviewed

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-english-request-for-witnesses-to-be.html


The comments are very interesting especially the timeline of the Taxi Driver.

Redwood thinks this person is of interest.  

27/08/2013 09:50
Anonymous said... 9
Coloboma- 1 in every 10,000 births

27/08/2013 13:59
Anonymous said... 10
I noticed the recent mention about the Portuguese taxi driver by the media who is saying he gave a lift to three men, one looking like Robert Murat, a woman who was a Kate McCann lookalike, and Madeleine, on the night she was said to have vanished. This sighing would appear to have been dismissed out of hand as not fitting into the time line as it was about 8-8.30pm.

The taxi driver says he noticed the fleck in the child's eye, as his own child had the same thing, and that her chin was making some sort of spasm motion. Clarence Mitchell pounced on this 'sighting' as nonsense as the McCanns were at the Tapas at the time. Then the time of the sighting was changed in the newspapers to the following night so now it became acceptable to the McCanns, though the taxi driver is adamant it was the same night Madeleine disappeared.

What ought to be asked the taxi driver is whether he actually saw the child moving at all (apart from a facial spasm which apparently can occur for hours after death), or whether the child merely sat eyes open on the lap of one of the men.

Also, he says the woman was wearing a yellow coat/jacket, and after looking at the photo of the Party on the bus it looks like Kate McCanns is wearing a cream coloured jacket, though the colour is fuzzy. Would cream look yellowish in traffic and the night lighting?

It is just a thought, but perhaps that sighting by the taxi driver ought not to be dismissed so readily until he answers whether or not the child actually walked, or talked, or whatever else, to prove that she could, since quite a number of people apparently don't even believe she was alive at that time.

By the way, it is also noticeable that Kate McCann is now saying that Madeleine didn't have that obvious fleck they made so much of in her eye after all!

Here's hoping they do question the taxi driver, and also keep in mind that Payne is a dead ringer for Murat.

27/08/2013 17:39

Anything Mitchell dismisses as "nonsense" should be examined very carefully.

interested wrote:Anything Mitchell dismisses as "nonsense" should be examined very carefully.

Hi interested, I read his Son is a Policeman and maybe coached him? The colobama would be impossible to see at that time of night . The timeline is wrong and if it was Murat, he has a car so why would they use a Taxi.? His statement was dismissed by the Portugese Police so why it is being brought up now is very odd.

I still think it would be worth interviewing him again, to see if the child got into the taxi on her own or was carried into it. I have always thought his comments unlikely to be relevant or noteworthy, but they should not be dismissed out of hand if the time of M's likely demise is not rigidly fixed.

comperedna wrote:I still think it would be worth interviewing him again, to see if the child got into the taxi on her own or was carried into it. I have always thought his comments unlikely to be relevant or noteworthy, but they should not be dismissed out of hand if the time of M's likely demise is not rigidly fixed.

For starters I would like to know where he picked these people up. what about the couple apparently holding a child who scurried off into a lane when the the headlights of a car picked them out?

It will be interesting to see if he mentions the women looked like Kate McCann and the man Robert Murat though i think if true, it was prob David Payne.

Panda! Do you have any evidence to say maybe his policeman relitive 'coached him'. I guess I feel, even if people wait too long, or are confused, or if their stories are not totally consistent, if they have NO CONNECTION with the case, are most likely to be in good faith, though I agree they could just possibly be attention seekers.

'Panda wrote: 'what about the couple apparently holding a child who scurried off into a lane when the the headlights of a car picked them out?' Yes I remember that report too. If the Met are insistent upon doing this dizzy dance of re-interviewing those already dismissed as unlikely to have a connection, they might as well follow up that one again too. By George these old coppers, so near to retirement, better come up with something worthwhile after all this shenannigans!

Don't forget the drunk they picked up out off the gutter.

comperedna wrote:Panda! Do you have any evidence to say maybe his policeman relitive 'coached him'.  I guess I feel, even if people wait too long, or are confused, or if their stories are not totally consistent, if they have NO CONNECTION with the case, are most likely to be in good faith, though I agree they could just possibly be attention seekers.

No comperedna, I don't know that his Son coached him but would imagine the Father must have told his Son before making the statement and for me the columbara is the giveaway.There is no way the taxi driver could see that inside a Cab when it was dusk , I'can't remember the date he made the Statement .If it was days after Madeleine disappeared it could be feasible, if a couple of months definitely not.

Forget about the drunk...he's been found and named as C Mitchell from London.



They didn't recognise him as he was face down at the time.

Ho ho ho

Panda. Taxis have lights in them. Drivers can turn them on in their part, and to assist the passengers getting in and getting settled. His comment on seeing the coloboma could be true. If it was Madeleine and all the other things we think are most likely are wrong, was she sedated, or was she ill, or was she sleepy, or what? She is said to have sat on the lap of one of the adults silently. It is that small slice of doubt about timings and happenings, everything else that I keep open that is talking now. Very unlikely, but, we are told, everything is being explored!

Most reports I've seen give the date of the journey as 4th May.
 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422662/Taxi-driver-tells-police-I-can-help-you-find-Madeleine-McCann

Does anyone know for sure when the taxi driver made the statement? I understood that it was months later in 2008 and, if that's the case, it's simply ridiculous that he waited so long.

He sounds to me like the other people who are convinced they've seen Madeleine; well-meaning but thick!

comperedna wrote:Panda. Taxis have lights in them. Drivers can turn them on in their part, and to assist the passengers getting in and getting settled. His comment on seeing the coloboma could be true. If it was Madeleine and all the other things we think are most likely are wrong, was she sedated, or was she ill, or was she sleepy, or what? She is said to have sat on the lap of one of the adults silently. It is that small slice of doubt about timings and happenings, everything else that I keep open that is talking now. Very unlikely, but, we are told, everything is being explored!

To be honest comperedna , what with the sightings all over the World, Janes' , the Smiths, this Taxi Driver etc I really would like to know what Redwood has found tochase after 38 "possible " leads 6 yrs later , I'm just waiting for Madeleine to be sighted in Rothley . 

The McCanns are very quiet , do they know something we don't?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Most reports I've seen give the date of the journey as 4th May.
 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422662/Taxi-driver-tells-police-I-can-help-you-find-Madeleine-McCann

Does anyone know for sure when the taxi driver made the statement? I understood that it was months later in 2008 and, if that's the case, it's simply ridiculous that he waited so long.

He sounds to me like the other people who are convinced they've seen Madeleine; well-meaning but thick!

It was the 3rd of may at 8.10pm.....if I know that why doesn't Deadwood..plank.

Probably so. We don't know. More worryingly, is Redwood? Surely you can't get to somewhere near the top echelons of the Plod and be two bottles short of a crate, can you? After that totally unnecessary, and wholly unsuitable, and bonkers Redwood TV interview I did begin to wonder.

comperedna wrote:Probably so. We don't know. More worryingly, is Redwood? Surely you can't get to somewhere near the top echelons of the Plod and be two bottles short of a crate, can you? After that totally unnecessary, and wholly unsuitable, and bonkers Redwood TV interview I did begin to wonder.

Well he sure did make it look like the lunatics were running the asylum!!!!

comperedna wrote:Probably so. We don't know. More worryingly, is Redwood? Surely you can't get to somewhere near the top echelons of the Plod and be two bottles short of a crate, can you? After that totally unnecessary, and wholly unsuitable, and bonkers Redwood TV interview I did begin to wonder.

it's amazing what gets promoted.

I don't know if Redwood is playing the McCanns and will pounce when the time is right or he is truly as thick as he looks. You have to wonder how he has reached such a high rank in the Police Force.

Panda wrote:

I don't know if Redwood is playing the McCanns and will pounce when the time is right or he is truly as thick as he looks. You have to wonder how he has reached such a high rank in the Police Force.

Hi Panda

If the McCanns have played no part in Madeleine's disappearance apart from the neglect which they admitted to the PJ and the media, Redwood is doing them a great disservice, when he keeps telling the media that they are not persons of interest to him. The McCanns need to be questioned at length, because they were the last ones to see Madeleine alive and if they are innocent, they need to be eliminated from the enquiry.

I have always believed that the McCanns have played more of a part in Madeleine's disappearance, than the neglect issue. However it isn't what I believe, it is what needs to be done within the law.

I also believe that Andy Redwood, should not be speaking to the media about any aspect of this investigation. However that doesn't mean to say I'm right.

kathybelle wrote:

Panda wrote:

I don't know if Redwood is playing the McCanns and will pounce when the time is right or he is truly as thick as he looks. You have to wonder how he has reached such a high rank in the Police Force.

Hi Panda

If the McCanns have played no part in Madeleine's disappearance apart from the neglect which they admitted to the PJ and the media, Redwood is doing them a great disservice, when he keeps telling the media that they are not persons of interest to him. The McCanns need to be questioned at length, because they were the last ones to see Madeleine alive and if they are innocent, they need to be eliminated from the enquiry.

I have always believed that the McCanns have played more of a part in Madeleine's disappearance, than the neglect issue. However it isn't what I believe, it is what needs to be done within the law.

I also believe that Andy Redwood, should not be speaking to the media about any aspect of this investigation. However that doesn't mean to say I'm right.

Its very unlikely indeed that Andy Redwood would give anything away. It reminds me of when police sit next to parents at a press conference to make an appeal for a missing child and appear to be supporting the parents and the next day we hear the parents have been charged over the disappearance. Redwood did not tell us anything and did not give any game away, he was playing his cards close to his chest and was only stating how it was with the enquiry at that particular stage of it, on that particular day/week and was not eliminating or including anyone in it to my mind. It was PR speak most of it to get the McCanns onside because if he appeared not to, they would not co-operate, as evidenced in Portugal. Nothing wrong either with almost retired policemen conducting an enquiry - they have far more experience and know how to handle the press/media.

Hi LJC, nice to see you posting....actually Redwood has said a lot that he shouldn't have. The most serious , that he thinks Madeleine could be alive. we know he give briefings to the McCanns , but as this is now an investigation he shouldn't be reporting to them or the Press. Especially now that there is an up coming Trial where Amaral has said he believes Madeleine died in 5a, the McCanns will use that as part of their defence. I know what you mean though about playing a suspect .

kathybelle wrote:

Panda wrote:

I don't know if Redwood is playing the McCanns and will pounce when the time is right or he is truly as thick as he looks. You have to wonder how he has reached such a high rank in the Police Force.

Hi Panda

If the McCanns have played no part in Madeleine's disappearance apart from the neglect which they admitted to the PJ and the media, Redwood is doing them a great disservice, when he keeps telling the media that they are not persons of interest to him. The McCanns need to be questioned at length, because they were the last ones to see Madeleine alive and if they are innocent, they need to be eliminated from the enquiry.

I have always believed that the McCanns have played more of a part in Madeleine's disappearance, than the neglect issue. However it isn't what I believe, it is what needs to be done within the law.

I also believe that Andy Redwood, should not be speaking to the media about any aspect of this investigation. However that doesn't mean to say I'm right.

Hi Kathybelle, we know that if there was a reconstruction based on the Tapas 9 Statements they would not agree. Only kate's fingerprint on the Window the most telltale sign that she lied. Unless Madeleine was taken for ransom by one of the OC Staff who knew the nightly routine of the McCanns the finger must point to the Parents.