Andy Redwood...?

In my opinion, if the original team of PJ investigators, had been allowed to investigate this case, without interference from the British and Portuguese authorities, they would have brought the investigation to a rightful conclusion. The McCanns would have been brought to justice, for their part in Madeleine's disappearance and so would their accomplices, because the McCanns would have squealed as soon as they were charged.

If I am so wrong, why are the McCanns not suing Tavares de Almeida? After all he sent a damning report about them, to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation.

We all know that the report wasn't acted on, but the fact of the matter is, Tavares de Almeida stated that fact which is in the PJ Files. In my opinion, more people will have read Mr Almeida's report, along with other information that is in the PJ Files, than Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie'.

Even if I am wrong and less people have read the report, than Goncalo Amaral's book, the fact is, the report is damning and the McCanns have done nothing about it. All I can say is Mr Almeida must have reached the right conclusion, because if he didn't the McCanns would have sued the pants off him, when the files were released back in 2008.

When the files were released, Clarence Mitchell read out a statement on the McCanns behalf. He stated that the McCanns were disappointed that the files had been made public. He stated that the McCanns wanted time to read the files, before they were made public. The McCanns have been in possession of those files since 2008, the fact they've not contradicted them in a court of law, can only mean that the contents of the files are truthful. I.M.H.O.

kathybelle wrote:In my opinion, if the original team of PJ investigators, had been allowed to investigate this case, without interference from the British and Portuguese authorities, they would have brought the investigation to a rightful conclusion. The McCanns would have been brought to justice, for their part in Madeleine's disappearance and so would their accomplices, because the McCanns would have squealed as soon as they were charged.

If I am so wrong, why are the McCanns not suing Tavares de Almeida? After all  he sent a damning report about them, to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation.

We all know that the report wasn't acted on, but the fact of the matter is, Tavares de Almeida stated that fact which is in the PJ Files. In my opinion, more people will have read Mr Almeida's report, along with other information that is in the PJ Files, than Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie'.

Even if I am wrong and less people have read the report, than Goncalo Amaral's book, the fact is, the report is damning and the McCanns have done nothing about it. All I can say is Mr Almeida must have reached the right conclusion, because if he didn't the McCanns would have sued the pants off him, when the files were released back in 2008.

When the files were released, Clarence Mitchell read out a statement on the McCanns behalf. He stated that the McCanns were disappointed that the files had been made public. He stated that the McCanns wanted time to read the files, before they were made public. The McCanns have been in possession of those files since 2008, the fact they've not contradicted them in a court of law, can only mean that the contents of the files are truthful. I.M.H.O.

Very good post as usual Kathybelle xxxx

Thanks Krisy xx  

I keep thinking of ways the McCanns could be innocent, but unfortunately I can't find anything that would bring me to that conclusion. Below are just some of the reasons why in my opinion, the McCanns can never be innocent.

The McCanns not looking for Madeleine, the phoning of the British Government, when they should have been out looking for Madeleine. Along with the lies the McCanns told and the way they hindered case. The fact they've used Madeleine as a cash cow, by spending her fund money, which was meant to be used to find her, propping up their finances, paying extortionate fees to dodgy detectives, who brought misery to some families in far off lands, when they stated that their children could be Madeleine.

Those families were tracked down by the media and their children's photographs plastered all over the British. Innocent adults were also named and shamed by the British media, thanks to the McCanns dodgy detectives, telling the media that these people were suspected of playing a part in Madeleine's disappearance.

Clarence Mitchell also benefited from Madeleine's fund, when he took a £30k salary, as a part time mouthpiece for the McCanns.

The McCanns must be thanking their lucky stars, that they have been so protected for the past 7yrs.

Poor Madeleine wasn't worthy of being protected by her parents and those who are protecting her parents, have been to busy making them the victims of a heinous crime, to care about Madeleine.

You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here. Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury. If they were I doubt we would be here talking now. Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions. The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws. Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation. And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government. And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.

Also he has to keep the PJ onside. Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them. Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from. The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion. I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers. I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

I think that may be the understatement of the year...

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

I think that may be the understatement of the year...

Please list all of them so we can count them. I believe the two countries are co-operating where possible. I did not say they like each other but I don't believe war has broken out either, far from it

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

I think that may be the understatement of the year...

Please list all of them so we can count them.  I believe the two countries are co-operating where possible. I did not say they like each other but I don't believe war has broken out either, far from it

Well, I wouldn't call it war. I would call it a cold war. It's more accurate.
Sorry, can't go into more detail.

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

I think that may be the understatement of the year...

Please list all of them so we can count them.  I believe the two countries are co-operating where possible. I did not say they like each other but I don't believe war has broken out either, far from it

Well, I wouldn't call it war. I would call it a cold war. It's more accurate.
Sorry, can't go into more detail.

Thanks Claudia, however detail is what I go on I'm afraid. I, and I'm sure others, can only pass opinion on the details we know about and there is lack of detail about non-co-operation.

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

I think that may be the understatement of the year...

Please list all of them so we can count them.  I believe the two countries are co-operating where possible. I did not say they like each other but I don't believe war has broken out either, far from it

Well, I wouldn't call it war. I would call it a cold war. It's more accurate.
Sorry, can't go into more detail.

Thanks Claudia, however detail is what I go on I'm afraid.  I, and I'm sure others, can only pass opinion on the details we know about and there is lack of detail about non-co-operation.  

I didn't refer to co-operation. I meant 'differences' Co-operation is these cases is clear: international law makes it easy although some seem to understand the law better than others. As for the differences, there are plenty of clues. If people want to see them, of course.

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

I think that may be the understatement of the year...

Please list all of them so we can count them.  I believe the two countries are co-operating where possible. I did not say they like each other but I don't believe war has broken out either, far from it

Well, I wouldn't call it war. I would call it a cold war. It's more accurate.
Sorry, can't go into more detail.

Thanks Claudia, however detail is what I go on I'm afraid.  I, and I'm sure others, can only pass opinion on the details we know about and there is lack of detail about non-co-operation.  

Oh, I think you will find that there are others who pass opinions whether the details are known or not. You can count me in that as I have opinions, based on nothing other than how I see/read things. I don't class my opinions as fact and they're just that, my opinions.

dazedandconfused wrote:Oh, I think you will find that there are others who pass opinions whether the details are known or not. You can count me in that as I have opinions, based on nothing other than how I see/read things. I don't class my opinions as fact and they're just that, my opinions.

Nothing wrong with that either. For myself I do tend to read as much detail as I can to try to form an opinion.

The problem is when people form an opinion based on nothing and present it as fact. Then things get confusing.

LJC wrote:You make many valid points Kathybelle about why you feel they are innocent but I feel you are missing the point here.  Unfortunately, none of the points you make would be sufficient to satisfy Judge or Jury.  If they were I doubt we would be here talking now.  Other cases with far more substantiation have failed at Court; such is the difficulty in ensuring the veracity of the evidence presented. Court cases these days rely on Police disclosure and the continuity of the disclosure is paramount to success.

Regarding Mr Redwood speaking; it is a UK investigation and we do not have the same restrictions.  The Portuguese have their own investigation and they abide by their own laws.  Andy Redwood is merely asked not to comment when the investigation brings his team over to Portugal and, in effect, it becomes a joint UK and Portuguese investigation.  And it is only fair the Portuguese remind SY on this point because when two countries laws are so different it can be a problem, so there is no issue at all with the Portuguese reminding him not to make comment concerning the dig, which was a very sensitive procedure.

So far as him claiming the McCanns are not suspects; the McCanns themselves pushed hard for this enquiry, which was eventually granted by the Government.  And given the fact that there is no body found, no 100% reliable witnesses (and I do not mean this in an unkind way against the Irish family), plus insufficient reliable evidence, no DNA, no CCTV footage, and with the strong potential for lack of co-operation from the McCanns if he should approach this case in such a way he upsets them; Andy Redwood has I feel no choice but to take the softly softly approach, to the point of making the unorthodox initial statement that the McCanns are not suspects.

It’s not so much that he may be trying to be clever or cunning here, but more to do with the fact that this is indeed a very unorthodox case. He knows full well his approach will upset the anti-McCann groups but he has to conduct this enquiry in an unconventional way instead of beginning at the standard starting point for regular investigations.  

Also he has to keep the PJ onside.  Yes they have had a few differences but by and large there is good co-operation between them.  Andy Redwood has, I feel, done this by not stampeding over their work and by demonstrating that he is content with much of the original casework material, indeed using this original material as a platform to work from.  The PJ flagged up plenty of leads and Andy Redwood is looking at certain of these from different angles now.

All the points you make Kathybelle; if the investigation were to run along these lines then it would certainly fail in my opinion.  I say this because it would be going headlong in, straight to the McCanns, without the time beforehand to gather the crucial evidence that they cannot argue against.  

So I don’t care really if Mr Redwood upsets people by questioning burglars, drug dealers, gypsies, Russians, smokers on balconies, cleaners, MW staff or holidaymakers.  I don’t care if he finds that one witness who knows enough to lead to Madeleine's body (and I think the McCanns). There can be no doubting; outside help was needed for disposal and it may well turn out in this unorthodox case to be the last person imaginable.

You've misread the beginning of my post, LJC. I stated that I was thinking of ways the McCanns could be innocent, but unfortunately I couldn't any. The reason I stated what I stated, was not because I believe the McCanns are innocent, it's because I have come across posters who do believe they are innocent.

I'm well aware that the points I have raised, would not bring the McCanns to justice. If the damning report against the McCanns, that Victor Tavares de Almeida, sent to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, was not enough to bring the McCanns to justice, then nothing will bring them to justice.

Regarding the McCanns pushing for a review, the McCanns did not get what they wanted. The McCanns wanted David Cameron to conduct the review. When David Cameron stated that a team of Scotland Yard officers, would be conducting the review, with the PJ being in charge, the McCanns were asked if they were pleased that a review was taking place, they said had only partially got what they wanted.

The McCanns were the ones who requested that the case was closed, back in 2008, while they were still arguidos. They didn't get what they wanted on that occasion, because the case was only shelved. The McCanns also had 28 days (correct me if I'm wrong on the time scale) to ask for the investigation to be restarted. I wasn't too surprised when the McCanns didn't make this request, after all they had requested the case was closed, so why would they want it to be restarted?

At the time the McCanns were trying to get Goncalo Amaral's book permanently banned, they were standing outside the Lisbon Court, giving interviews to the waiting reporters. Kate McCann was holding a banner and along with her husband she was whinging about wanting a review. A waiting Portuguese reporter, told the pair of them, to go back in court. Goncalo Amaral, who was the one who revealed that the McCanns had asked for the investigation to be closed, stated that if the McCanns wanted it restarted, all they needed to do, was send a request in writing and stick a stamp on the envelope.

Kate McCann stated in her book that "It may seem strange, but in some ways we were glad the case was closed"

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions, as to why the McCanns wanted the investigation to be closed.

Regarding Andy Redwood, in my opinion, he is a disgrace. If as you believe, Redwood did nothing wrong, when he told the media what was happening and who he was investigating, he would not have been told to keep his mouth shut, when he went over to PDL to oversee the digs.

Redwood has no say in how the PJ conduct the investigation, however the PJ have a say in the way Redwood and his team, conduct the investigation and it is because they are in charge. Redwood can only interview people on Portuguese soil, if he has been given permission to do so. Redwood was not given permission, to search the homes of 3 burglars, who he suspected of breaking into the McCanns apartment and leaving with Madeleine. I'll hazard a guess and state that he was not given permission, because there was no evidence of a burglary, just as there was no evidence Madeleine was abducted.

The evidence all points to the McCanns and in my opinion, if the PJ had been allowed to investigate, without interference from the British and Portuguese Governments, the McCanns would have faced justice, back in 2008 and Madeleine would have received the justice she deserves.

I feel it must have come as quite a shock to Redwood to discover that he had to investigate according to the law and not in the way that SY are more accustomed to.

Very well put kathybelle. I wish I could put things so well but I share your thinking.

According to the Mirror, David Cameron and family are heading to Portugal for their vacation. Unlike that other infamous couple, I hope he makes necessary babysitting arrangements if he and the Mrs. dine out without the children. I seem to remember he forgot and left his daughter in a pub in the U.K. a while back. The Camerons must like Portugal; they have vacationed there before.

im with kathybelle on this entirely. whilst I appreciate some of the comments you have made LJC I like many others have been called for Jury duty and the cases I heard, of course I wont go into them, had many he said she said points which were taken to be salient otherwise the CPS would not have taken the cases forward. there was very little in the form of forensic evidence on any of the cases I heard so witness statements and what they said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement.

Im not entirely sure that the McCs pushed hard for the investigation. from what I have read and I have to question why, it was our red headed female at Murdochs paper that pushed really hard for the investigation and published the McCs letter. if it was the McCs that wrote it. imo the McCs didn't like the Portuguese investigation, even before it was underway they were criticising the GNR and said no one was looking only them, so I consider that any action they have taken subsequently is not to search or find Madeleine but to try and have their reputations as parents restored. for whats its worth I don't think they will ever be anything other than the parents who left 3 children under 4 without appropriate care and attention in an apartment in a foreign country, if that is what really happened and so far we only have their word that that is what happened. no amount of investigations by the SY the PJ or any number of private investigations firms who have no established record of finding children will change that.

I also agree with you LJC that when people form an opinion based on nothing and then present it as fact is when it gets confusing. imo this is what Mr Redwood has presented to the UK public through the UK Media with some of his comments .

tanszi wrote:im with kathybelle on this entirely.  whilst I appreciate some of the comments you have made LJC I like many others have been called for Jury duty and the cases I heard, of course I wont go into them, had many he said she said points which were taken to be salient otherwise the CPS would not have taken the cases forward.  there was very little in the form of forensic evidence on any of the cases I heard so witness statements and what they said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement.  

Im not entirely sure that the McCs pushed hard for the investigation.  from what I have read and I have to question why, it was our red headed female at Murdochs paper that pushed really hard for the investigation and published the McCs letter.  if it was the McCs that wrote it.  imo the McCs didn't like the Portuguese investigation, even before it was underway they were criticising the GNR and said no one was looking only them, so I consider that any action they have taken subsequently is not to search or find Madeleine but to try and have their reputations as parents restored. for whats its worth I don't think they will ever be anything other than the parents who left 3 children under 4 without appropriate care and attention in an apartment in a foreign country, if that is what really happened and so far we only have their word that that is what happened.  no amount of investigations by the SY the PJ or any number of private investigations firms who have no established record of finding children will change that.

I also agree with you LJC that when people form an opinion based on nothing and then present it as fact is when it gets confusing. imo this is what Mr Redwood has presented to the UK public through the UK Media with some of his comments .

Hi Tanszi

I've never been on jury service, I was married to a police officer, who served in the police during the 60's and 70's and at that time, a police officer's spouse, would not be called to do jury service. I don't know if this is still the case.

The McCanns didn't want an investigation and they certainly didn't want the case reopening. Goncalo Amaral states in the link below, that the McCanns wanted the 'process archived'

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/gerry-mccann-placed-both-knees-on-floor.html

The McCanns state in the video below, that they do want the case reopened, but it was only after the reporter forced them to say so. They never took steps to have the case reopened, even though Goncalo Amaral said all it would cost was the price of a stamp. Lets face it if the McCanns wanted the case reopened, the case would have been reopened, they had the might of the British Government on their side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI2-SReQXlM

I can't find the link to the page in Kate McCanns book, were she stated that they were glad when the case was closed All I know is, the number of the page is 317. What I'm trying to say is, Gerry McCann states in the video above that they want the case reopened, yet Kate McCann states in her book, which was published after that court case, that they were glad the case was closed

Regarding the review, I didn't know at the time, that it was Rebecca 'whatshername' who pushed for the review, I thought it was just the McCanns. I remember Gerry McCann whinging to the media, about David Cameron not wanting a review. He made a remark that was completely below the belt, he said, 'he knows what it's like to lose a child'

I can only imagine how David and Samantha Cameron felt, when they heard Gerry McCann come out with that cruel statement. Their little boy passed away, because of his health issues. The McCanns were the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance.

I was amazed when David Cameron agreed to a review, after the cruel comments of Gerry McCann.

Regarding Redwood telling the media things that should be kept within Operation Grange. I found it rather strange that Redwood, made it plain right from the beginning, that the McCanns along with their mates were not persons of interest to him. Redwood knew that the McCanns were the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance, he also knew that the McCanns lied and hindered the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, in any way they could, from the minute the GNR eventually arrived at their apartment.

Redwood has made people who have been cleared of any involvement with Madeleine's disappearance, persons of interest. He has also made people persons of interest, for no other reason than he can.

In my opinion, Redwood is saying without using the words, that the investigation will be a whitewash. Redwood doesn't give a stuff that Madeleine will never receive justice, if he gets his way and he doesn't give a stuff that the British taxpayer, has to pay for this whitewash.

In my opinion, Redwood is no better than the McCanns dodgy detectives, who screwed Madeleine's fund for a lot of money, whilst doing very little to find her.

Can I join the tanzi and kathybelle appreciation society. You both put things into words so much better than I could and I agree with both of your recent posts.

kathybelle wrote:The McCanns wanted David Cameron to conduct the review. When David Cameron stated that a team of Scotland Yard officers, would be conducting the review, with the PJ being in charge, the McCanns were asked if they were pleased that a review was taking place, they said had only partially got what they wanted.

If that is the case then the McCanns have even less common sense than I imagined. Common sense, if they had any at all, would tell them that somebody in the high position of Prime Minister of Britain, who has a bloody whole country to run, does not personally conduct reviews into anything at all. All a Prime Minister can do, if he agrees and supports the idea, is delegate, by ordering a review to be undertaken by the most relevant department, chosen for their expertise. which is what he did (or rather his Home Secretary had the task allocated to her).

The McCanns asked for a review and got it. What they did not ask for was the re-opening of the case but In July 2013 the British Crown Prosecution Service sent a request for assistance to Portugal, and DCI Redwood announced that Operation Grange had become a "criminal inquiry".

Likewise, The Policia Judiciaria who had been reviewing the case also, re-opened their investigation in Portugal after they said they believed the culprit was a former Ocean Club employee who died in a tractor accident. Thus, the police forces disagreed as to whether the 'intruder' was black or, as Scotland Yard said, had "tanned skin."

The PJ named (and shamed) tractorman. SY publicly declared they were investigating cleaners and burglars.

However, by naming or publicly identifying a group of individuals without naming, yes people will get upset. However, naming suspects not yet charged or who may never be charged, does widen the scope for other people to come forward as witnesses. It is accepted in the UK that it is right to name suspects because it can positively help an investigation.

David Cameron himself is on record as stating, "It's a very difficult balance to get right. On the one hand, sometimes making public the details of an arrest (without charge) can help to bring forward evidence and bring forward potential victims. Therefore it is completely in the public interest. Sometimes it is right to respect the privacy of the individual because the publicity around these sorts of arrests can be genuinely life changing. There is no simple answer to this."

tanzi wrote:I like many others have been called for Jury duty and the cases I heard, of course I wont go into them, had many he said she said points which were taken to be salient otherwise the CPS would not have taken the cases forward. there was very little in the form of forensic evidence on any of the cases I heard so witness statements and what they said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement.

I have read this a few times and must say I am baffled. You say you have been called for Jury duty (singular) but say you heard cases (plural). Correct me if I am wrong here but I thought a jury member listened to one case only and that the only way a jury member could listen to more than one case would be if that person was called up more than one time to do jury service? If it is the latter, that would be very unlucky to find the same individual being called up more than once, perhaps just a few years apart.

Also you say there was very little in the form of forensic evidence on any of the cases (plural again). However, in that event, the witnesses testimonies must have been seen as 100% reliable in what they actually saw i.e. there can have been no doubt whatsoever that they saw the actual defendant and not somebody else who they mistook for the defendant (as some people think in the Smith sighting - not that Gerry McCann is a defendant yet).

Also, without knowing if you found guilty or not guilty in the cases you mention, it is again hard for others to agree on whether the lack of forensic evidence made a difference. Defence lawyers are very good at what they do, as are Prosecution lawyers, and cases presented to court must be seen as watertight but sometimes the CPS are criticised for bringing forward cases that are seen to have no chance of succeeding.

LJC wrote:

tanzi wrote:I like many others have been called for Jury duty and the cases I heard, of course I wont go into them, had many he said she said points which were taken to be salient otherwise the CPS would not have taken the cases forward. there was very little in the form of forensic evidence on any of the cases I heard so witness statements and what they said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement.

I have read this a few times and must say I am baffled.  You say you have been called for Jury duty (singular) but say you heard cases (plural).  Correct me if I am wrong here but I thought a jury member listened to one case only and that the only way a jury member could listen to more than one case would be if that person was called up more than one time to do jury service?  If it is the latter, that would be very unlucky to find the same individual being called up more than once, perhaps just a few years apart.

No, I did Jury service a couple of years ago and sat on 3 cases. An underage sex case and 2 drug cases.

eta Jury service lasts about 2 weeks and you hear however many cases they need you for in that time, and sometimes, if the case runs over the two weeks you have to stay for however long.

kathybelle wrote:I've never been on jury service, I was married to a police officer, who served in the police during the 60's and 70's and at that time, a police officer's spouse, would not be called to do jury service. I don't know if this is still the case.

I believe that this has now changed kathybelle. I believe this was once the case but is no longer. I believe it was once the case because a wife or family of a police officer would be considered perhaps biased against the defendant but I believe this is no longer the case because it is a jury of 12 and similarly someone with strong human rights opinions could be seen as biased against the prosecution. Of course if a juror has personal knowledge of the defendant then he/she cannot serve and would be exempted.

wjk wrote:

LJC wrote:

tanzi wrote:I like many others have been called for Jury duty and the cases I heard, of course I wont go into them, had many he said she said points which were taken to be salient otherwise the CPS would not have taken the cases forward. there was very little in the form of forensic evidence on any of the cases I heard so witness statements and what they said in court was the basis for the Jury's judgement.

I have read this a few times and must say I am baffled.  You say you have been called for Jury duty (singular) but say you heard cases (plural).  Correct me if I am wrong here but I thought a jury member listened to one case only and that the only way a jury member could listen to more than one case would be if that person was called up more than one time to do jury service?  If it is the latter, that would be very unlucky to find the same individual being called up more than once, perhaps just a few years apart.

No, I did Jury service a couple of years ago and sat on 3 cases. An underage sex case and 2 drug cases.

Thank you for clearing this up wjk   

You're welcome x

Whilst I was in the Uk I was called for jury duty 3 times. Each time I was called I sat on the jury for more than one case.