Andy Redwood...?

I think Andy Deadwoods credability (if indeed he ever had any) went out of the window, was when he gave his 'great' speech, which consisted of "Well Madeleine is either dead or alive"

If  he  has  an  ounce off  decency he would  stand  up  and  say......im  sick  of  this  farce, a  child  has  died  and  im  not  covering  up  for  the  mccanns  anymore.

But  i  forgot......he  hasnt.

As others on this forum have posted previously... Why is the forensic evidence provided by Eddie and Keela, (the most reliable evidence in the case of Madeleine's disappearance) never mentioned by the SY super sleuth team led by DCI Andy Redwood?
Come on Andy, prove that the dogs are wrong then you can start searching the world for disabled deviants, or Norwegian catburglars with a penchant for smuggling children.
Stop bringing shame on a Police Service that was once respected and system of law that set the Gold Standard, do the job you are sworn to do.

He has said categorically that the mccanns and friends are not suspects.

It will take some kind of U turn to turn that around.

That is why Andy Redwood is ridiculous.

Lioned wrote:He has said categorically that the mccanns and friends are not suspects.

It will take some kind of U turn to turn that around.

That is why Andy Redwood is ridiculous.

I'd like to believe that Redwood knows what the truth is and he's merely doing as he's told...

But he should grow some gonads and do his job professionally.

Lioned wrote:I feel sorry for him as he probably has family and has been told to do a job.If you have kids and a mortgage and a career to protect then you have to do as you are told,most likely he is sick of the sight of the mccanns.

It is beyond any kind of imagination,for me at least, that he is going through all the information 'meticulously'.
He has an agenda to change the facts and cleanse the mccanns and any old and preferably dead bad man will do.

But that's the whole point. Its a team, a whole great team, including Portuguese coppers. Its not Andy Redwood working on his own, its about a room full of men and women, some of them civilian support staff. It is the team as a whole who are going through everything and it is the team as a whole who brief Andy Redwood on what they have uncovered. It is then up to Andy Redwood to decide what to do with the information they feed him. Its his shout.

So, if in similar circumstances you or I were working as part of a team and the team found x, y or z out and then Andy Redwood turns around and thinks, oh that would be ridiculous to investigate that, what would the team then be thinking? Its his shout, but I am sure he is thinking no matter how insignificant or stupid, its got to be looked at.

As far as him clearing the McCanns, well quite simply he can't. How can he clear the McCanns? He's not Judge and Jury. The case of Madeleine McCann was shelved and no one was charged so no one can be cleared.

Those responsible are under his nose and how daft will SY look if they turn on the mccanns now,7 years on ! Not going to happen unfortunately

No one can say if its going to happen or not imo. But everyone and everything seems to be coming under scrutiny so far as I can see.

He has an agenda to change the facts and cleanse the mccanns and any old and preferably dead bad man will do.

The last coppers that tried that ended up losing their jobs and at least one is in prison. I'm thinking of the Andrew Mitchell saga. It is more than a Policeman's job is worth to work to their own agenda.

malena stool wrote:As others on this forum have posted previously... Why is the forensic evidence provided by Eddie and Keela, (the most reliable evidence in the case of Madeleine's disappearance) never mentioned by the SY super sleuth team led by DCI Andy Redwood?
Come on Andy, prove that the dogs are wrong then you can start searching the world for disabled deviants, or Norwegian catburglars with a penchant for smuggling children.
Stop bringing shame on a Police Service that was once respected and system of law that set the Gold Standard, do the job you are sworn to do.  

But the dogs' findings are already there, in the files. SY know about it. What Team SY are striving to do is bring NEW information and witnesses to light and have that in the files also. Its not about what the dogs' found its about who was responsible for what the dogs found.

I'm with you, yes the dogs I believe in, they found cadaver scent and blood. But who, just who, is responsible for what the dogs alerted to?

Look, if there is just the slightest doubt that there could be a serial sex attacker out there, its got to be investigated because that person could have been responsible for what the dogs found.

Andy Redwood is the DCI in charge and spokesman so he is the one in the firing line.He has a team that are probably unaware of 'the agenda', maybe one or two close associates.
As has been said it would be unusual to eliminate anyone from the process,particularly not the 'Arguidos' unless there was good evidence to do so.If that is the case then we havnt seen it.

Some 'cold cases' are solved many years later but never through good or meticulous detective work.They are solved through luck,when maybe a body gets dug up in someones garden,or they get solved when someone eventually spills the beans or some other crazy event occurs,never by good police work as any hint of that has long gone to sleep.

malena stool wrote:

Lioned wrote:He has said categorically that the mccanns and friends are not suspects.

It will take some kind of U turn to turn that around.

That is why Andy Redwood is ridiculous.

I'd like to believe that Redwood knows what the truth is and he's merely doing as he's told...

But he should grow some gonads and do his job professionally.

I fancy that if he did that, he would no longer have a job.

Lioned wrote:Andy Redwood is the DCI in charge and spokesman so he is the one in the firing line.He has a team that are probably unaware of 'the agenda', maybe one or two close associates.
As has been said it would be unusual to eliminate anyone from the process,particularly not the 'Arguidos' unless there was good evidence to do so.If that is the case then we havnt seen it.

Some 'cold cases' are solved many years later but never through good or meticulous detective work.They are solved through luck,when maybe a body gets dug up in someones garden,or they get solved when someone eventually spills the beans or some other crazy event occurs,never by good police work as any hint of that has long gone to sleep.

Actually, there are very few 'no body' murders. Mostly the Police have a body, so its wrong to say cases are solved by luck when a body gets dug up. In fact it is my experience that Police have very little luck generally in their investigations. More often than not they come up against brick walls, the public often reluctant to speak out against someone for fear of reprisals for instance or witnesses being totally unreliable for one reason or another.

jassi wrote:

malena stool wrote:

Lioned wrote:He has said categorically that the mccanns and friends are not suspects.

It will take some kind of U turn to turn that around.

That is why Andy Redwood is ridiculous.

I'd like to believe that Redwood knows what the truth is and he's merely doing as he's told...

But he should grow some gonads and do his job professionally.

I fancy that if he did that, he would no longer have a job.

You're right jassi, but he'd have a clear concience although that wouldn't necessarily put food on the table...

Maybe so LJC. Just thinking,by definition,a cold case is just that,been shelved and put away to gather dust,no one working actively on it until something happens.So it is not police work that gets it resurected its some other event usually a stroke of luck but maybe a connection to an active case.

Andy wants us to think he and his team are working hard,hence the Hollywood photo shoots with trolley loads of files walking the cobbles in Faro.And the 'team' burning the midnight oil in the meticulously tidy offices at SY surrounded by a library of files.
Sorry but i'm not buying it.

I am unable to agree with you LJC if the bosses say it doesn't get investigated regardless of what others in the team think, its doesn't officially get investigated. there may be others that go it alone so to speak but they would need to be very brave and involve the media with a huge scoop otherwise there would be little point in finding something and then ignoring it. im not talking this case, im talking any case. jimo

LJC wrote:

malena stool wrote:As others on this forum have posted previously... Why is the forensic evidence provided by Eddie and Keela, (the most reliable evidence in the case of Madeleine's disappearance) never mentioned by the SY super sleuth team led by DCI Andy Redwood?
Come on Andy, prove that the dogs are wrong then you can start searching the world for disabled deviants, or Norwegian catburglars with a penchant for smuggling children.
Stop bringing shame on a Police Service that was once respected and system of law that set the Gold Standard, do the job you are sworn to do.  

But the dogs' findings are already there, in the files.  SY know about it. What Team SY are striving to do is bring NEW information and witnesses to light and have that in the files also.  Its not about what the dogs' found its about who was responsible for what the dogs found.

I'm with you, yes the dogs I believe in, they found cadaver scent and blood.  But who, just who, is responsible for what the dogs alerted to?

Look, if there is just the slightest doubt that there could be a serial sex attacker out there, its got to be investigated because that person could have been responsible for what the dogs found.

I agree EVERY loose end has to be tied up but l can't see this 'sex offender' taking a dead body. Until then he'd never murdered anyone, whoever heard of the offender breaking in, murdering someone and abducting the body? And why would you do that?

Lioned wrote:Maybe so LJC. Just thinking,by definition,a cold case is just that,been shelved and put away to gather dust,no one working actively on it until something happens.So it is not police work that gets it resurected its some other event usually a stroke of luck but maybe a connection to an active case.

Andy wants us to think he and his team are working hard,hence the Hollywood photo shoots with trolley loads of files  walking the cobbles in Faro.And the 'team' burning the midnight oil in the meticulously tidy offices at SY  surrounded by a library of files.
Sorry but i'm not buying it.

So what luck have SY had? If it is your argument that cases get solved by luck then SY must be having to work flat out to find that piece of luck. Nearly all UK Police Forces have an unsolved case unit. I come under West Midlands and I know they have a very active cold case unit which has had a high degree of success when re-visiting old serious crimes.

And he would have to hang around long enough for the cadavar odour to develop which according to Andys Crimewatch timings would not be possible.

LJC wrote:

Lioned wrote:Maybe so LJC. Just thinking,by definition,a cold case is just that,been shelved and put away to gather dust,no one working actively on it until something happens.So it is not police work that gets it resurected its some other event usually a stroke of luck but maybe a connection to an active case.

Andy wants us to think he and his team are working hard,hence the Hollywood photo shoots with trolley loads of files  walking the cobbles in Faro.And the 'team' burning the midnight oil in the meticulously tidy offices at SY  surrounded by a library of files.
Sorry but i'm not buying it.

So what luck have SY had?  If it is your argument that cases get solved by luck then SY must be having to work flat out to find that piece of luck. Nearly all UK Police Forces have an unsolved case unit. I come under West Midlands and I know they have a very active cold case unit which has had a high degree of success when re-visiting old serious crimes.

SY dont have to work at all.Sometimes some lag in jail decides to spill the beans or as i said a body turns up.Not many cold cases actually get solved.

margaret wrote:

LJC wrote:

malena stool wrote:As others on this forum have posted previously... Why is the forensic evidence provided by Eddie and Keela, (the most reliable evidence in the case of Madeleine's disappearance) never mentioned by the SY super sleuth team led by DCI Andy Redwood?
Come on Andy, prove that the dogs are wrong then you can start searching the world for disabled deviants, or Norwegian catburglars with a penchant for smuggling children.
Stop bringing shame on a Police Service that was once respected and system of law that set the Gold Standard, do the job you are sworn to do.  

But the dogs' findings are already there, in the files.  SY know about it. What Team SY are striving to do is bring NEW information and witnesses to light and have that in the files also.  Its not about what the dogs' found its about who was responsible for what the dogs found.

I'm with you, yes the dogs I believe in, they found cadaver scent and blood.  But who, just who, is responsible for what the dogs alerted to?

Look, if there is just the slightest doubt that there could be a serial sex attacker out there, its got to be investigated because that person could have been responsible for what the dogs found.

I agree EVERY loose end has to be tied up but l can't see this 'sex offender' taking a dead body. Until then he'd never murdered anyone, whoever heard of the offender breaking in, murdering someone and abducting the body? And why would you do that?

And why 7 years younger than his youngest previous victim? Madeleine's disappearance bears no resemblance to these cases whatsoever! SY is barking up the wrong tree.

tanszi wrote:I am unable to agree with you LJC  if the bosses say it doesn't get investigated regardless of what others in the team think,  its doesn't officially get investigated.  there may be others that go it alone so to speak but they would need to be very brave and involve the media with a huge scoop otherwise there would be little point in finding something and then ignoring it.  im not talking this case, im talking any case. jimo

Its not what others in the team think. Its what others in the team have uncovered; put it this way, if the Lead Officer decided to ignore something uncovered that could afterwards have proved to be something vital, then it goes without saying the inevitable showdown that would result afterwards. When a team is set up the team works together including the Head of Team. These teams/units consist of people who are hand picked for their expertise and experience; some of them are long serving officers, some of them are retired former high ranking officers who are back in civilian roles. They are not dummies. They would know if something they uncover is not acted on. It is not possible to go it alone in such teams. All information has to be logged onto a computerised system, all witness statements have to be recorded, all new items of evidence, along with already existing items/forensics have to be recorded/disclosed and it would only be after a collective team meeting that strategies and future direction of a case would be decided.

In my opinion, Andy Redwood is a bad copper, because his style of investigating is not what he would have learned as a rookie copper. To start off with, he should have interviewed the McCanns, because they were the last people to see Madeleine alive. Redwood has done nothing but tell the media stuff that should be kept between he and his team. He also should never have told the media, that the McCanns and their mates were not persons of interest to him, especially when he knew full well that they are the prime suspects in Madeleine's disappearance.

If Redwood was been told by a higher authority, to look for anyone but the McCanns, to take the blame for Madeleine's disappearance, then if he had a shred of integrity and empathy for Madeleine, he should have refused to take part in this investigation. The fact that he has, shows he is as corrupt as the rest of the force.

As i said earlier SY the Mets recent history is littered with failure and corruption more often than not stitching up the wrong black guy.
Even their own investigating officer in the bribery and corruption dept got caught 'on the take'.

They couldnt investigate their way out of a paper bag with holes in it.

They are an incompetent and corrupt institution that survives on its 'old boys network'.

They have no intention of finding the real culprits and ultimately will blame the Portuguese.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Margaret wrote:I agree EVERY loose end has to be tied up but l can't see this 'sex offender' taking a dead body. Until then he'd never murdered anyone, whoever heard of the offender breaking in, murdering someone and abducting the body? And why would you do that?

Well, if the McCanns turn out to be the offender, they murdered and abducted the body. But until then they had never murdered anyone. The sex offender, when found, may or may not have murdered someone before, because we don't know who he is so we cannot say.

On the other hand it could be an accident gone wrong. So it could be the McCanns if its accidental and then covered up or it could be a sex offender if its accidental and covered up.

It could be a burglar, high as a kite, putting his hands over poor Madeleine's mouth to quieten her and inadvertently snuffing the life out of her.

Who knows. The dogs found certain evidence which has indications of a death, but at whose hands?

This case certainly does need solving but oh how hard for SY is the task in hand. One thing is for sure, a very, very serious crime has been committed here and it most certainly does warrant a re-investigation.

I don't think Andy Redwood and his team really have the McCanns at heart. I think they have Madeleine in their hearts but this is no easy task for anyone imo. If the course of this re-investigation does lead them to look again at the McCanns I do not think Andy Redwood & Co will shirk from doing this, far from it.

If they, on the other hand, come up with a sex offender or burglar, they will need to back this up with hard evidential proof that this person, dead or alive, has carried out this crime, so for that reason if that's how it all ends up, I will have to accept this fact.

They cannot however just dream up an offender where none exists, that's just not possible.

If you ask me my bet is they will end up shelving it just like the PJ have done, unable to make this stick to anyone. But, imo, this will not be due to lack of effort.

It would not be the first time they have dreamt up an offender if thats what they want to do they will do it as they have in the past.

LJC wrote:

Margaret wrote:I agree EVERY loose end has to be tied up but l can't see this 'sex offender' taking a dead body. Until then he'd never murdered anyone, whoever heard of the offender breaking in, murdering someone and abducting the body? And why would you do that?

Well, if the McCanns turn out to be the offender, they murdered and abducted the body.  But until then they had never murdered anyone.  The sex offender, when found, may or may not have murdered someone before, because  we don't know who he is so we cannot say.  

On the other hand it could be an accident gone wrong.  So it could be the McCanns if its accidental and then covered up or it could be a sex offender if its accidental and covered up.

It could be a burglar, high as a kite, putting his hands over poor Madeleine's mouth to quieten her and inadvertently snuffing the life out of her.  

Who knows.  The dogs found certain evidence which has indications of a death, but at whose hands?

This case certainly does need solving but oh how hard for SY is the task in hand. One thing is for sure, a very, very serious crime has been committed here and it most certainly does warrant a re-investigation.

I don't think Andy Redwood and his team really have the McCanns at heart.  I think they have Madeleine in their hearts but this is no easy task for anyone imo. If the course of this re-investigation does lead them to look again at the McCanns I do not think Andy Redwood & Co will shirk from doing this, far from it.  

If they, on the other hand, come up with a sex offender or burglar, they will need to back this up with hard evidential proof that this person, dead or alive, has carried out this crime, so for that reason if that's how it all ends up, I will have to accept this fact.  

They cannot however just dream up an offender where none exists, that's just not possible.

If you ask me my bet is they will end up shelving it just like the PJ have done, unable to make this stick to anyone.  But, imo, this will not be due to lack of effort.

Hi LJC

I don't know what happened to Madeleine, I don't know if she came to harm, at the McCanns hands or if she came to harm at the hands of someone known or unknown to the McCanns. I don't know if Madeleine was taken by someone known to the McCanns or unknown to the McCanns. Or she was taken with or without the McCanns blessing.

What I do know is, that whatever happened to Madeleine, it is the McCanns fault. If the McCanns were speaking the truth and Madeleine was taken while they were out, they are responsible for this happening. If the McCanns were speaking the truth, I can never understand why they never looked for Madeleine. I don't believe for one minute, that the reason they never looked for Madeleine, was because for the first 48hrs, they were almost non functioning, if that was true, they would not have behaved in the way they did behave, in the hours after Kate McCann supposedly discovered Madeleine gone.

Due to the lies the McCanns have told from day one, the hindering of the investigation, due to trampling all over the crimes scene by the McCanns and their mates, then the evidence found in the McCanns apartment, which suggested Madeleine came to harm, then the McCanns denying there was this evidence, in my opinion, Madeleine was never abducted and the McCanns know exactly what happened to her.

This is why I have a problem with Andy Redwood, he should have liaised with the new team of PJ investigators, to have the McCanns taken over to Portugal and questioned again about Madeleine's disappearance. There could have been a media black out, until it was decided whether the McCanns were going to be charged with offences, regarding Madeleine's disappearance.

The way I see it, unless the McCanns are brought to justice, for their part in Madeleine's disappearance, Madeleine will never receive justice. Also how are Sean and Amelie going to feel when they are old enough to learn all the facts of the case, if their parents are not brought to justice?

Regarding your comments about the PJ being unable to make 'this stick to anyone,' the PJ would have been able to bring this case to the right conclusion, if certain high profile people, within the Portuguese and British Government, hadn't interfered.

Also it wasn't the PJ who shelved the case, it was a department within the Portuguese Authority. The case has now been reopened, I presume by the same department. If Andy Redwood or the person who has instructed him to leave the McCanns and their mates out of this investigation, cannot find a patsy, to take the blame for Madeleine's disappearance,  they cannot shelve the case, just as the PJ couldn't. All they can do is bring their investigation to an end.  

Even if Redwood does find a patsy, he cannot bring charges against them, it is up to the PJ to do that. Also if that person had played a part in Madeleine's disappearance, how could the PJ bring charges against him or her and not the McCanns. When the McCanns were the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance, whether she was abducted or not.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccanns-blog-mccanns-fund-mccanns-alert.html

I've seen comments on other forums where posters have stated that the McCanns cannot be brought to justice, because there was no proof that they intended Madeleine to come to harm, when they left her along with the twins unsupervised, when they went out for the evening. Due to the McCanns behaviour after Madeleine disappeared, I don't believe the McCanns version of events. However what I think has no bearing on this case. What I can see when I've looked at article 138 of the Portuguese Penal Code, is the if the PJ choose to believe the McCanns version of events, the McCanns did break the Portuguese law.

The McCanns were not a couple of naïve teenagers, they were a couple of doctors, approaching middle age, who knew the perils of leaving young children unsupervised.

I wonder how many Portuguese citizens, have been brought to justice, for leaving their children unattended.

When this case first happened and forums were formed, a Portuguese poster put an article on a forum which showed that a Portuguese citizen, was prosecuted for leaving his child in a pram, outside a shop.

I'm not saying this man should or shouldn't have been prosecuted, what I'm saying is did he intend his child to come to harm, when he went into the shop? If he didn't why was he prosecuted? Was he prosecuted because his child could have come to harm?

If that is the case, why were the McCanns not prosecuted, because Madeleine has come to harm even if she was taken to live with a family who have since taken proper care of her. She will have suffered mental anguish, at being parted from her parents.

Maybe one of our Portuguese members can explain why the McCanns were not prosecuted, if Madeleine disappeared in the way they said she disappeared.

The mccanns weren't prosecuted for neglect because either the pj didn't believe they were neglected or they wanted the mccanns prosecuted for a more serious crime and didn't envisage that they would get away with both.


I think personally they made a mistake not prosecuting them for neglect because the threat off this may off made the tapas seven rethink their positions if they thought that they too may be prosecuted for leaving their children alone...who knows