Andy Redwood...?

Don't expect anything different from the MET or SY.


Remember Barry George?



Dont forget Colin Stagg.



The amount off evidence NOT to arrest and try him is beyond belief....but oh no, that was there man and there was no budging them.


They were relentless in there pursuit off him even though it was blatantly obvious he had nothing to do with the murder ...but the plodded on and on....they were right and that was that.



When evidence against another man was staring them in the face, a knife found on the common was found to have DNA from the actual murderer , who also had raped 3 women and STILL they ignored this man who only raped women who were with their children, did they put two and two together , nope, because they were hell bent on Stagg, even using a honey trap.... which they must off known was illegal ...to put him in the frame.


In the end it was proved that the MET and SY were wrong BUT not before implanting in the medias mind that 'they weren't looking for anyone else' when the trial collapsed against stagg....nasty.


IF they had not been so hell bent in the relentless pursuit off stagg then another women and her child would not off been raped and brutally murdered whilst Stagg was in prison awaiting trial.


Fitting up is there game .

Yet there are still many who think that Redwood is playing some very clever game, keeping the fact that the McCanns are prime suspects close to his chest. I wish I shared their faith but I'm sure Madeleine will never get the justice she deserves and Redwood was handpicked to ensure that the McCanns are never in the frame.

Well most police officers can go home and look their family straight in the face and say.....I did good today , I solved a case and the culprit got life in prison and the victim got some form off justice.



What about you Deadwood.....can you look your family in the face and say that?

What about when you go to bed at night, can you sleep Deadwood?



Because if you CAN....your just as bad as the Mcanns.

thanks all for your input . I also don't think there is enough evidence ,well none they would use to get justice done ,I don't think it will ever get to court either ,I just hope the twins do not suffer too much with all this ,one day they will be asking questions .joyce1938

dazedandconfused wrote:Yet there are still many who think that Redwood is playing some very clever game, keeping the fact that the McCanns are prime suspects close to his chest.  I wish I shared their faith but I'm sure Madeleine will never get the justice she deserves and Redwood was handpicked to ensure that the McCanns are never in the frame.

No matter what Redwood's game/remit is, how could he guarantee the silence of the 35 detectives under him?Plus the fact that, at some stage in the future, one or more of the T9 (unlikely, I know, but....) might grow a pair and sing. Too risky, imo. My glass is still half full.

kitti wrote:Well most police officers can go home and look their family straight in the face and say.....I did good today , I solved a case and the culprit got life in prison and the victim got some form off justice.



What about you Deadwood.....can you look your family in the face and say that?

kitti wrote:What about when you go to bed at night, can you sleep Deadwood?



Because if you CAN....your just as bad as the Mcanns.

Why on earth should Andy Redwood feel any sort of guilt? Why on earth should he not be able to hold his head up, look at his family, or sleep at night? He is trying to find out what has happened to Madeleine and that is a worthwhile job. It matters not who he suspects now or who he does not suspect; its just words. He is turning more stones over than anybody else and that may upset some people but he's doing it. He has not named any suspects; the PJ are on record as naming tractor man and any others are named because they were given arguido status, which was their prerogative for their own protection during questioning but it leads to their names being made public. That is how is works in Portugal so Andy Redwood cannot be blamed for that.

Its no good going over and over old cases like Barry George and Colin Stagg. Why don't we talk about successes instead? Thousands of them up and down the country, thousands of criminals every year successfully brought to justice to keep us safe, including the Met. But no, we focus on one or two cases that were not successful instead. Well all forces have their rogue cases I'm afraid but weighted against their successes they are few and far between - its just that when it goes wrong the media have a field day etc.

Well sometimes it goes wrong in hospital or with the army (torture, friendly fire etc). But we call these professionals heroes all the same. Nothing wrong with that because the majority of nurses/soliders are just that, without question, but there are still those who do not nurse well or soldier well and we get the abuse claims against them, but by and large they are heroes.

And its the same with the Police.

kitti wrote:And  the  cadaver scent all over Kate McCann and the apt and car mean nothing?

Nope, not without a body. And don't just take my word for it, Pat Brown is on record as saying this, the PJ know it and SY know it.

Yes indeed, Andy Redwood is doing an unenviable job that no other Policeman would wish to do - no body, no witnesses, no co-operation.

People have been convicted of murder without a body before and I am sure they will be again.

Yes, fuzeta, April Jones's body has never been found but Bridger was convicted

malena stool wrote:Yes, fuzeta, April Jones's body has never been found but Bridger was convicted

Wrong, I believe I am right in saying they identified some of her bones in Bridger's fireplace.

LJC wrote:

malena stool wrote:Yes, fuzeta, April Jones's body has never been found but Bridger was convicted

Wrong, I believe I am right in saying they identified some of her bones in Bridger's fireplace.

Yes, that's right. they did. Poor wee soul.

Iris wrote:

LJC wrote:

malena stool wrote:Yes, fuzeta, April Jones's body has never been found but Bridger was convicted

Wrong, I believe I am right in saying they identified some of her bones in Bridger's fireplace.

Yes, that's right. they did.  Poor wee soul.

I stand corrected, sorry.

It does not change the fact that people are convicted of murder without a body

There are several cases...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

Circumstantial evidence was originally deemed sufficient to obtain a murder conviction in the Australian "Dingo baby case", and in others such as Bradley John Murdoch and the murder of Thomas and Jackie Hawks.

In June 2001, Essex teenager Danielle Jones went missing and despite a body never being found, the required circumstantial evidence was provided by forensic analysis of text messages sent by the accused, her uncle Stuart Campbell, who was charged with her murder in November 2001 and convicted a year later. Police determined that Campbell had sent text messages from Danielle's mobile phone to his own after she disappeared, to make it appear that she was still alive, and noted that the spelling of some words in the text messages sent from Danielle's mobile phone had changed after she was reporting missing.

In the Australian no-body murder of Keith William Allan, evidence from forensic accountants established a motive for his murder. The chance police finding of one perpetrator driving Allan's car and the conduct of all perpetrators, in particular mobile telephone records, were also important factors in their conviction.[11]

In 2008, Hans Reiser was convicted of first degree murder of his wife, Nina Reiser. After conviction and before sentencing, Reiser plead guilty to the lesser charge of second degree murder in exchange for disclosing the location of his wife's body.[12]

The possibility of the supposed victim turning up alive remains. In 2003, Leonard Fraser, having allegedly confessed to the murder of teenager Natasha Ryan, was on trial for this, and other murders, when she reappeared after having been missing for four years.[13]

In 2012, in Scotland the prosecution twice won a conviction without a body in the murder of Suzanne Pilley and the murder of Arlene Fraser.

fuzeta wrote:It does not change the fact that people are convicted of murder without a body

You are right, it does not change the fact that people are indeed convicted of murder without a body.

But, may I say, the instances of 'no body murders' are rare and where a conviction is obtained it is with good reason.

Good witnesses, good cctv, fraudulent activity etc.

Here are examples: -

Don Banfield, 63, was last seen alive leaving his family home in Harrow, north-west London in May 2001. His body has never been found.

In 2009 police re-opened their investigation and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley, 64, and daughter Lynette, 40.

They found the pair had forged documents with his signature, fraudulently collected his pension and immediately moved house following his disappearance, first to Yorkshire and then to Canterbury in Kent.

They also lied about seeing him in 2008.

But without finding a body, how did police know he had been murdered?

'Tipping point'
Det Ch Insp Howard Groves, who led the Met investigation, said he had "no nagging doubts" that Mr Banfield was dead, but admitted missing body murders were extremely difficult to prove.

He said: "You have to satisfy the jury that someone is dead and therefore not going to walk into a police station and say, 'I believe my wife and daughter have been convicted of my murder, but here I am alive and well'."


Danielle Jones, 15, vanished while walking to catch a school bus near her home in East Tilbury, Essex, in June 2001. Her body has never been found.

Danielle Jones, 15, was murdered by her uncle Stuart Campbell in 2001
Suspicion immediately fell on her uncle Stuart Campbell who denied her kidnap and murder.

As part of his defence, lawyers presented two text messages sent from Danielle's phone to her uncle after she disappeared.

The first read: "HI STU THANKZ 4 BEIN SO NICE UR THE BEST UNCLE EVER! TELL MUM I'M SO SORRY LUVYA LOADZ DAN XXX"

However, the text messages soon moved from being a central part of Campbell's defence, to being a weapon for the prosecution after linguistics expert Professor Malcolm Coulthard was called.

He pointed out that Danielle had only ever sent messages in lower case.

He also highlighted the misspelling of "what" in the other text. Campbell had spelt it "wot", whereas Danielle's usual spelling before her disappearance was "wat".

Campbell was found guilty of her murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Roy Murphy, a retired Detective Chief Inspector who now lectures in policing and criminal investigations at Canterbury Christ Church University, said this is a common tactic.

"The defendant tries to put up a ruse that the body lives," he said.

"He or she sends messages or makes calls from the victim's mobile phone - in the past this was done by doing things like writing letters."

The difficulty with no body murders is this, that they are easier in the case of an adult or teenager to present a better case before a jury. This is because we are all creatures of habit - we all use bank cards, phones, computers and are driven by routine. When these activities change it immediately arouses suspicion.

With little children there are no routine habits to go by, no routine behaviour that somebody else could try to mimic to make it appear they are still alive i.e. fraudulent use of a bank card.

Sorry, but with little children it is extremley difficult to prove without a body and even with an adult, as can be seen from the examples above, it is still difficult and the evidence has to be overwhelming to convince a jury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

Lots of cases listed here, including one that was local to where I used to live - Arlene Fraser.

Iris wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

Lots of cases listed here, including one that was local to where I used to live - Arlene Fraser.

Yes, plenty of examples Iris, but how many are there for little children?

Therefore, Andy Redwood has to add to the evidence he already has somehow. And that is going to prove very difficult for him. I even believe if Mr Amaral had stayed involved with the case, adding to the evidence would have proved insurmountable for him as well, without a body.

We can all go on and on and on until it borders on repetitive, going on and on about how could the McCanns have left their children to go out, how could they go running after she disappeared etc. And we can talk about the dogs until the cows come home, but its not enough evidence without a body. Martin Grimes agreed that it was an indication only; it was indicating Madeleine was dead but that's all and it does not prove by whose hands she died.

Listen, no one here doubts that Madeleine is dead, she is dead of course.

But nothing I have read is sufficient proof for a jury that her parents should be convicted. I know deep down that I feel they are involved, but feelings are not proof either.

It really is about convincing a jury isn't it.

It might be in the UK LJC, but I don't know if this would require a jury trial in Portugal. It might be just a judge, or panel of judges, that need convincing. Maybe Claudia would know.

I don't think they have a jury system in Portugal.

Iris wrote:It might be in the UK LJC, but I don't know if this would require a jury trial in Portugal.  It might be just a judge, or panel of judges, that need convincing.  Maybe Claudia would know.

wjk wrote:I don't think they have a jury system in Portugal.

But I believe I read that the CPS had been out to Portugal - so I am thinking it could eventually lead to a trial in the UK if SY can prove it is a British citizen/s responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

I don't know LJC, I sort of assumed that any trial would be in Portugal as the crime took place there.  But I suppose it could take place in the UK instead.

There are trials with a jury in Portugal but they are rare and the judge has to agree to it. Even so, the judge always has an opinion and in case there are doubts his/her opinion is the one which counts.

My problem with Andy Redwood is, until recently, every time he opened his mouth, he put his foot in it. He should never have told the media that the McCanns along with their friends were not persons of interest, for the simple reason that the evidence found in the McCanns apartment, including the cadaver odour on the clothing of Kate McCann and Madeleine, pointed to the fact Madeleine died in the McCanns apartment.

There was no evidence Madeleine was abducted and the last people to see Madeleine alive were the McCanns, none of the McCanns friends, who supposedly checked on the children saw Madeleine, even though her bed was facing the door of the children's bedroom.

Redwood made a laughing stock of the British police officers, who advised the PJ to make the McCanns suspects, back in May 2007. Redwood also made a laughing stock of one of the 'Met's senior officers who stated that while the McCanns may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them.

It was Redwood who told the police that the 12 cleaners in a white van were persons of interest to him. It was Redwood who told the media that it was the dead paedophiles who had been cleared of any involvement while they were alive, who were persons of interest to him. It was Redwood who told the media that 3 burglars were persons of interest to him, even though there was no evidence a burglary took place.

It was Redwood, who told the media, that he believe Madeleine was dead when she was removed from the apartment and it was Redwood, who told the media, that he believed Madeleine's body was returned to PDL and buried there. When Redwood was given permission to organise the 'dig' in PDL, he was told to keep his mouth tightly closed. In my opinion, this was too late, Redwood had already stated too much to the media, that has given the impression that his investigation will be a whitewash.

Redwood may well have been told by a higher authority, not to involve the McCanns or their mates in this investigation. However if this was so, I'm sure the higher authority, didn't expect Redwood to open his mouth and state publicly that the McCanns and their mates were not persons of interest to him.

Redwood should have kept his mouth shut, about all aspects of this investigation, until the investigation reached it's conclusion. When the review began, David Cameron made it clear that Operation Grange, would be assisting the PJ, he also made it clear that nothing in the review would be made public. Cameron should have made the same statement, when the review turned into an investigation.

I don't believe the McCanns will be brought to justice, even though they are the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance. There may be someone out there who played some part in whatever happened to Madeleine and her removal from the McCanns apartment, if they are found and brought to justice, it will be a travesty of justice if the McCanns are not brought to justice.