From Anne Guedes Libel trial McCann v Goncalo Amaral - Day 12 - Gerald McCann's deposition 08 July 2014

If Redwood was put in a difficult position with a difficult (surely not unexpected question from the press) the best answer would have been that he couldn't discuss an ongoing investigation.

Experienced officers like Redwood should not be "caught out" by questions from the press...especially questions which are obviously going to be asked.

LJC wrote:If Mr Redwood wanted to protect the McCanns, its highly unlikely that he would make it so obvious.  

No re-investigation in the world starts with a declaration of who is a person of interest.  Mr Redwood was being pushed and asked a question unfairly at the beginning in my opinion and of course he could only answer the way he did. A no comment answer would have given a wrong impression as well with many thinking, ah perhaps the McCanns are suspects, so he had no choice.

Re-investigations are what they are, fresh eyes and open minds, and everybody is ruled out until eventually somebody is ruled in.

As for those of us who have spoken to a police officer about it; do you know what, a great many of us have, me included (I'm bloody surrounded by them) and believe me none of them I have spoken to think this is an easy investigation and they are right.  Its about as complex as they come is the truth of it.

FGS Redwood should have kept his bliddy mouth shut, the investigation should have remained behind closed doors, because Operation Grange, were assisting the PJ, not the other way round.

Redwood has been a loose cannon, since he took charge of this investigation. He stated more than once, often without prompting, that the McCanns were not persons of interest to him, however he went even further by stating who were persons of interest to him. A white van contain 12 cleaners, were persons of interest to Redwood and so were a small group of burglars and 2 dead paedophiles, who'd already been cleared. One by the PJ and the other by the police force in the country he was a resident in.

When Redwood went over to PDL, to take charge of the digs, he was ordered to keep his mouth tightly shut. I can only imagine that it was because the Portuguese Authority were sick and tired of him telling things to the media, that should have remained between Operation Grange and the PJ. Redwood has cause misery to the families of the dead paedophiles, however bad the behaviour was of these men, during their lifetime, their families are not at fault.

While the many police officers you have spoken to, have taken the view that the investigation isn't easy, if this is so, it is because of Redwood's leadership. He may have been told not to make the McCanns persons of interest, even though they should have been. However, I don't believe he was told to mouth off to the media.

Scotland Yard have a reputation for being corrupt, Redwood enhanced that theory, when he kept mouthing off to the media.

Well said kathybelle.  Exactly my thinking but you managed to put it so much better than I could.    Edited to add Angelina as well.

well said kathy , these men that have been named in the press have their own families im disgusted by this , we have kate mcann going on about her own family being subject to stuff on radio and in the press , it should apply to all , they might all have children too protect all children , the mcanns too

count me in agreement with your post kathbelle, dazedand confused and cass. Its a difficult investigation, is it, then stop knocking the PJ. Is it difficult because of what, time that's elaspsed, the contradictions of the T9. K and G and their spokesman who are nearly always in the media, sometimes telling outright porkies, Redwood speaking to the media and giving a running commentary and naming names. who does that in a good investigations. Its a crock and he knows it. I really feel sorry for everyone who thought it was a good opportunity for the Met to show its brilliant investigative skills and bring back a bit of respect. its done entirely the opposite in my opinion. No one should be named as suspect or being of and not being of interest because until they know, they know nothing. its not over till the fat lady sings, and by gosh I think theres a few fat ladies to sing. will you listern SY.

The people who are named at present are named because they are official arguidos, I believe I am right in saying. And it was the PJ who named dead tractorman as a person of interest to them! Despte the fact the PJ first questioned him in 2008, it was the PJ who named him this time around and many say the reason for this case being re-opened in Portugal.

The McCanns were named as suspects when they were made arguidos, as was Robert Murat.

The names in the press now are because they are arguidos I believe and SY cannot make them arguidos and SY cannot question them, only observe.

As for Mr Redwood, whatever he said would have been wrong. Even a simple I cannot speak about this investigation would have prompted speculation right from the off about the McCanns. Mr Redwood knew what he was saying imo; he was nipping speculation in the bud so that SY can get their work done. There is still speculation of course; from us and nothing wrong with that. But he did not want speculation all over the press right from the off, so when he was asked a question or when he volunteered it before being asked, it was pre-meditated on his part to avoid the McCanns names being all over the press, in order to avoid the type of news reporting that could jeopardise any trial that comes along. Yes definitely, if he went no comment or I can't talk about an operational investigation, the speculation that he suspected the McCanns would have been rife. You could say he was between a rock and a hard place on this one, but he did what he did to save the press intrusion that can jeopardise court cases. I think he had to say the McCanns are not persons of interest from the outset because he knows these are the only likely people to ever come to court over this tragic and awful offence and no other answer or statement would do under the circumstances.

Its unusual I know, but this is an unusual case and its not been made difficult because of Mr Redwood; it was difficult for all organisations whether official or private investigators before Mr Redwood started his investigation. I believe one day the truth will come out, I really do and I do not think Mr Redwood and Mr Amaral will be so far apart and they will both agree it has been a difficult and complex case to handle, that's for sure.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree LJC and I don't think the truth will ever out. Hope I'm wrong you're right and I'll probably not live long enough to find out as it's dragging on for eternity while getting nowhere.

dazedandconfused wrote:I think we'll have to agree to disagree LJC and I don't think the truth will ever out.  Hope I'm wrong you're right and I'll probably not live long enough to find out as it's dragging on for eternity while getting nowhere.

Please don't give up dazedandconfused. You may well be right that we are all here for the long haul but please don't give up   

The people now in the press had to be made 'arguidos'. The authorities wouldn't be able to ask them those incriminating questions posed by SY if they weren't made 'arguidos' first. It's for their own protection too.

Mods - not sure where to place this article - please remove or place as you wish, thank you  

Couple claimed fake bomb detector 'could even find Madeleine McCann'

Couple claimed devices were made in a high security 'laboratory' and could be used to track down drugs, explosives and even people, court told



By Keith Perry and agency

2:48PM BST 14 Jul 2014

A married couple claimed bogus bomb detectors made in their garden shed could help find missing Madeleine McCann, a court heard yesterday.


Samuel Tree, 67, and his wife Joan, 62, sold the fake machines for thousands of pounds each, the Old Bailey was told.


They claimed that the devices were made in a high security 'laboratory' and could be used to track down drugs, explosives and even specific people.


But they were actually just plastic boxes with antennas stuck on top that cost a couple of pounds to build in their back garden, the court heard.


Prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse QC said: "This is a fraud case about dishonesty and deception but it has some highly unusual features.


Related Articles
Government was paid thousands to promote fake bomb detector
27 Jan 2014
Businessman jailed for seven years over fake bomb detectors
20 Aug 2013
Australian MP smuggles hoax pipe bomb into parliament
26 May 2014


The two people in the dock are a married couple.

"For many years they made a product, called an Alpha 6, in a shed in the back garden of their home.

"They claimed that this product was capable of detecting the presence of drugs and explosives and other substances and objects.

"They have even claimed that is it capable of finding missing people and on one occasion a claim was being made it was capable of even finding Madeleine McCann.

"These claims were false.

"The Alpha 6 device is nothing more than a plastic box with antennae stuck on the top and some pieces of paper inside.

'It cost a few pounds to make and yet was sold to agents and suppliers for hundreds and sometimes thousands of times this amount.

"The basic allegation is that the device does not work and they knew it did not work but they made it and supplied it to be sold for profit.

"Despite the fact that these devices did not work, people did astonishingly buy them."

The sham product was sold through Keygrove and Keygrove International, companies run from the couple's home in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, the court heard.

'The device was called the Alpha 6 Molecular Detector, a revolutionary product, according to the marketing material, for search and detection of specific contraband substances,' Ms Whitehouse said.

'There were apparently a number of variants - the devices could detect drugs, explosives and even particular people.

'It was claimed that the device could detect substances as small as 15 millionths of a gram at a range of up to 500 metres and was powered by nothing more than the static electricity generated by the body of the person operating the device.'

Samuel based his design on the American-made 'Quadro Tracker', a product originally marketed as a golf ball finder, the court heard.

The Quadro has now been banned across the world and its inventor Malcolm Roe came to Britain and stayed with the Trees.

'Sam Tree went to the United States in 1995 and saw this golf ball finder - Quadro Tracker - in action,' Ms Whitehouse said.

'He brought it back with him.

'This device could, it was claimed, detect the presence of drugs.

'It plainly did not impress the American authorities because in 1996, after a civil trial, the sale of Quadro Tracker was banned across the world because it was wholly ineffective and was being sold fraudulently.'

She added: "Mr and Mrs Tree were aware of the problems with the Quadro because Malcolm Roe was a friend of Mr and Mrs Tree.

'"Through this friendship they knew all about the failure of his detector device and Mr Tree went to America to give evidence on behalf in the civil trial."

The Trees previously sold crime scene equipment, including fingerprint powder, to various police forces across the country.

But they turned their hand to inventing in 1997 with their first detector device - the Mole.

The Mole was discontinued in 2004 because it did not work and Samuel moved on to the Alpha 6, the court heard.

"It was no more effective than the Quadro or the Mole," Ms Whitehouse said.

"There is evidence that Sam Tree was well aware of that."

The first batch of plastic boxes cost £5.10 each to make, the court heard.

The Trees ordered £65,000 worth to be made in China and shipped to the UK by product design firm Blue MT.

"The impression given is one of sophistication, and effectiveness based upon scientific principles," said Ms Whitehouse.

"The reality was that Samuel and Joan Tree were assembling the devices in the garden of their semi-detached house in Dunstable with plastic boxes made in China, glue and bits of paper."

Samuel and Joan Tree, of Dunstable, Beds, both deny making an article for use in fraud.

The trial continues.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10967191/Couple-claimed-fake-bomb-detector-could-even-find-Madeleine-McCann.html

kathybelle, spot on re Regwood.   

Claudia79 wrote:The people now in the press had to be made 'arguidos'. The authorities wouldn't be able to ask them those incriminating questions posed by SY if they weren't made 'arguidos' first. It's for their own protection too.

Well said Claudia  

If anyone knows the Portuguese law it is yourself

I know very little about the Portuguese law and what I do know is because of Madeleine's disappearance. Although I don't have any links to prove this, I do know that Robert Murat, requested the arguido status. I remember his lawyer speaking outside the gates of Mrs Murat's home, he stated that Robert Murat had asked for the arguido status, because it gave him certain rights, he was not entitled to when he was questioned as a witness.

tanszi wrote:count me in agreement with your post kathbelle, dazedand confused and cass.  Its a difficult investigation, is it, then stop knocking the PJ.  Is it difficult because of what, time that's elaspsed, the contradictions of the T9.  K and G and their spokesman who are nearly always in the media, sometimes telling outright porkies,  Redwood speaking to the media and giving a running commentary and naming names.  who does that in a  good investigations.  Its a crock and he knows it.  I really feel sorry for everyone who thought it was a good opportunity for the Met to show its brilliant investigative skills and bring back a bit of respect.  its done entirely the opposite in my opinion.  No one should be named as suspect or being of and not being of interest because until they know,  they know nothing.  its not over till the fat lady sings, and by gosh I think theres a few fat ladies to sing.  will you listern SY.  

Good morning Tanszi, well said   

Redwood has tried to make fools out of the PJ from the time he took charge of the review/investigation. He began by informing the media, that missed opportunities were found in the PJ files. Redwood  told the media, that he believed burglars and or paedophiles have entered the McCanns apartment and exited with Madeleine.

He had no proof that this happened, yet without actually saying the words, he was making out that forensics, didn't search the McCanns apartment thoroughly, because if they had, they would have found evidence that the burglars and or paedophiles had taken Madeleine.
 
Redwood and his team, have  even gone over to Portugal, to try to prove to the PJ that Madeleine was brought back to PDL and buried there. He chose 3 plots to be dug over and what did he find from the first dig? A bag of cannabis an old sock. The GNR officers who were asked to attend the digs, must have peed themselves laughing, when those objects were unearthed. I don't know what was found in the other digs, what I do know is, the other sock can't have been found, if it had, Redwood would have been beside himself that the two socks had been reunited.   

Redwood has proved that the only fool is himself.  

The PJ who have acted with dignity from the time they were hindered by the McCanns and the British Government back in 2007, should congratulate themselves, for not stooping to the level of Redwood.   

kathybelle wrote:Redwood has tried to make fools out of the PJ from the time he took charge of the review/investigation. He began by informing the media, that missed opportunities were found in the PJ files.

So what is news about this? This is usual in every re-investigation no matter what case it is and the Police, both former and current, know and expect that a re-investigation always finds missed opportunities. It is well known throughout the Police in all countries that any re-investigation always turns up unknown material/suspects/intelligence etc and thats the whole idea of it. And very often those chosen to re-investigate a crime have been at the other end and have the experience of being involved on old enquiries that were never solved, and they know the score and usually support such re-investigations because any officer who cares would love to see an old case he worked on eventually solved, even if by a fresh bunch of officers. And it is usual to co-operate. There can be no police enquiries that are so conceited to say, we never made mistakes in our original investigation because all police everywhere worldwide know how difficult and complex many cases are and do not feel inferior because they couldn't solve it first time around and they do welcome re-investigations.

kathybelle wrote:Redwood told the media, that he believed burglars and or paedophiles have entered the McCanns apartment and exited with Madeleine.

Again I say, he could not go no comment or I cannot speak about the investigation or just say nothing, because he knows the whole world out there suspects the McCanns of this and anything like a no comment or similar would have produced mountains of speculation surrounding McCann involvement which would be bad for any future court cases against them (hopefully). And of course anybody else suspicious needs to be investigated/questioned as well - that's only right, because I am afraid to say there is not enough proof from the original investigation that proves without doubt it was the McCanns involved and so it is fair for any other suspicious activity to be investigated and we all believe that paedophiles are involved, don't we?

kathybelle wrote:yet without actually saying the words, he was making out that forensics, didn't search the McCanns apartment thoroughly, because if they had, they would have found evidence that the burglars and or paedophiles had taken Madeleine.

Well, he does trust Mr Grimes and the dogs because he is not contesting any of that, not re-investigating 5a with new cadaver dogs and if Mr Redwood can speak without actually saying words well sorry but interpretations of what someone means rather than his words are proof of nothing. I prefer to go by what are facts and it is a fact that SY are not going back into 5a with dogs again, so are happy with the original findings of the dogs. But I have said before, what the dogs found back then does not and has never proved McCann involvement, only that there was cadaver odour and Mr Redwood appears to agree with these findings and appears to be working up from there now, so appears to accept Madeleine is dead, having died in 5a, but he needs to know by whose hands. You never know, one thing has a way of leading to another, so if someone else is found to be involved (no matter how much we rubbish the idea) you know that particular person may have a link to someone else we do think is involved and may help to prove the case against those we do think responsible. Links in serious crimes are not always obvious and this is what makes such crimes so complex.

kathybelle wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:The people now in the press had to be made 'arguidos'. The authorities wouldn't be able to ask them those incriminating questions posed by SY if they weren't made 'arguidos' first. It's for their own protection too.

Well said Claudia  

If anyone knows the Portuguese law it is yourself

I know very little about the Portuguese law and what I do know is because of Madeleine's disappearance. Although I don't have any links to prove this, I do know that Robert Murat, requested the arguido status. I remember his lawyer speaking outside the gates of Mrs Murat's home, he stated that Robert Murat had asked for the arguido status, because it gave him certain rights, he was not entitled to when he was questioned as a witness.

Thanks, Kathybelle. But I'm far from an expert in law.