Lying in the Sun

Merry Christmas Mr Murat

Merry Christmas Mr Murat


It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...

A McCann Christmas!

Always does when Clarence hitches the reindeer to the McCann Campaign Sleigh and heads for the Sky (offices) a sure fire sign they have something they want to detract public attention from, and something also they would much prefer the public focus on.

This year is no different - they are still pulling crackers!  Outrageous stories in the press, stories created to distract from their nasty ways, that which they are guilty of, and stories to 'help' you focus on what they want you to believe. And always of course if anyone is daft enough to still donate to their Fund, after the revelations about this case, this couple, over the past seven years, they'll have no shame or qualms when it comes to relieving you of your cash.  

So what do they want to distract from this year?

How about the disgusting and despicable part they played together with Martin Brunt, Sky News and the online vigilantes, in conspiring and planning the attack carried out against a most decent human being, Brenda Leyland, a lady innocent of the claims made against her in the FILE which Gerry and Kate McCann passed to Metropolitan police, as confirmed by Sir Bernard Hogan Howe in a BBC Radio interview.

Days after this heinous attack, and make no mistake it was an attack against this lady by ALL, not simply Martin Brunt, he was the one who was sent to deliver the blow but EVERY last one of them put their weight behind it.  ALL played their part.

And let's not forget Clarence Mitchell in this - NOT A CHANCE IN HELL he did not have a hand in it.  McCanns don't pay him at a rate of £70,000 per annum to sit on his hands or his dumb ass, they pay him to see to it that they don't get their hands dirty, and that is exactly what he does - their dirty work. (NHS doctors must be getting paid a fortune if McCann can afford Mitchell)

Days after this attack sadly, Brenda Leyland was found dead.  

And let us not forget the scumbag that is Jim Gamble who stated on Twitter that the McCanns played NO part in these tragic events.

Funny that, best he go speak with Sir Bernard Hogan Howe Chief of the Metropolitan Police as he tells a quite different story, according to him the McCann family had in their possession the file (the original/a copy makes no difference) and it was in fact McCanns who handed this to Metropolitan Police.  

Makes one wonder if any one of these people know the meaning of 'truth and honesty.'  
 

As for the female columnists, Carole Malone and Lorraine Kelly who forever fail to go do any investigation whatsoever before opening their mouths and letting their bellies rumble -  one equally as bad as the other regarding Brenda Leyland.  They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves the part they played by backing the actions of the others in condemning an innocent lady.  Only saving grace for Malone in respect of McCanns is that unlike the fluffy fool that is Kelly, she at least acknowledges that what the McCanns claim they did to their three kids - leaving them alone every night, was child neglect.

And what else might the McCanns wish to detract the public's attention from?

Hell where does one start their list must be endless.  Well we know it's endless. And we know with every passing year, the more about this case, this couple which is discovered, becomes known, the more reason they have to create distractions, the more they need the services of their highly paid and very dodgy spokesperson to help create distractions.

Can see them now Christmastime in McCannland, Mitchell, Kate Healy Mccann and Gerry McCann gathered round the kitchen table plotting their next move, their next victim, writing their letters to Santa!

But the bottom line is this years roundup of McCanntales, actions, distractions, attractions, which sadly Ms Leyland is included, are too many to count:-

In other words, a whole lot of jiggery pokery for them to be jogging along with this Christmas season, perhaps even too much for Mitchell to handle.  But then again, he has Kate McCann at his side, her cunning and devious ways - invaluable!  No one can spin a story quite like she does!

  • The ongoing trial in Portugal the action they raised against Dr Goncalo Amaral - another decent and honest individual who has fallen foul of the McCanns nearing conclusion.
  • DCI Redwood of the Met retiring.
  • A new lead detective taking over from Redwood.
  • The Met in Portugal as witnesses in the case are re-interviewed.
  • Kate McCann wishing that Mr Murat was dead?

I haven't quite caught up with recent events but I gather the Met were in Portugal listening in when the Portuguese Police at the request of the Metropolitan Police interviewed Mr Robert Murat last week.  

Well I hope they were listening carefully to what he had to say, this man who is not a suspect but a WITNESS!

Gerry McCann and his darling wife Kate Healy must surely be wondering what Mr Murat had to say in his capacity as witness.  

Maybe the Met asked the Portuguese to ask Mr Murat if he and Gerry McCann knew each other before Madeleine was reported as missing?

I do recall when Gerry McCann was asked this very question, he replied with NO COMMENT!  How extraordinary.   Why did McCann not simply say he either did or did not know Mr Murat?

We all know too that no one forced their way into apartment 5A of the Ocean Club on the night Madeleine McCann was reported as having mysteriously vanished without trace.  That's a fact!

And we all know that no intruder entered through that unlocked patio door, as it was never left unlocked on all of the nights the McCanns claimed it was.

And we all know that no one came in through that open window/shutter which Kate Healy McCann claims to have seen.  The window shutter which she first claimed was forced open by an intruder, thereafter claiming (when it was discovered by forensics experts that it HAD NOT been forced open, and had but one person's fingerprints on the window area - HERS) that HER alleged intruder opened it to create a red herring.

Next she'll be telling us Santa Claus came down the chimney of apartment 5A in springtime, a dummy run in preparation for Christmastime  - Kate McCann did say she thinks the alleged abductor did a dummy abduction run the night before they reported Madeleine as missing, I know, I know, the tales they have told are quite fantastic - and carried Madeleine off in his big sack, then popped her in the stocking of a kindly childless couple, who were not naughty but nice, and who deserved to be given a kidnapped child to raise as their own.  Only trouble being, a child they could not enrol in school, take on outings, visit with friends, or allow her face to be seen by anyone in the entire world as the child is known around the globe as 'missing Madeleine!' 

Just what every kind childless couple hope for - to become criminals!

Oh I think the 'nice childless couple story raising Madeleine' has got to be up there with Kate McCanns err, her err..
  • her red herring story
  • her jemmied window/shutter story
  • her whooshing curtains story
  • her entering the apartment by the patio door story
  • her Madeleine had her best day ever story
  • her cookies and milk story, which eventually became, cookies, milk, biscuits, potato crisps and treats...Yeah Kate McCann can spin some tales.
Come to think of it - the patio door story - Which day did McCanns claim to have left the patio door unlocked for the first time?  OOPS no one bothered to put that question to them! Just as well, as Gerry and Kate would have found:

  • The greatest difficulty explaining WHICH night they decided to leave it unlocked. 
  • The greatest difficulty in explaining WHY they would change from leaving their three children in such a vulnerable position alone in a locked apartment to the more vulnerable position of being left alone in an unlocked apartment! 
  • Oh, and the greatest difficulty explaining what was the NOISE, you know the 'noise' Gerry in his little documentary, said was the cause of them deciding to change their routine, from leaving their kids in a locked apartment to an unlocked one!   
What could that noise have been I wonder, just the general sound of a door opening, the pitter patter of feet as Gerry or Kate tip toed inside crossed the tiled floor of apartment 5A?

He claimed never did his children wake when he and his wife went to check on them - so why would he change routine due to
'the noise' a noise which did not wake his children?

Yeah, Gerry McCann, he can spin tales just like his wife Kate Healy. In competition it would seem - see who can tell the tallest tale, the biggest porky!

And talking of lies.  Gerry McCann is the guy who told Portuguese Police that he had on the night Madeleine was reported as missing, entered that apartment through the locked front door using his key to open it. Then SEVEN days later Madeleine's dear daddy went to police and whoopsy he told them, 'Oh hang on a minute I need to change my story, I don't want to say that I entered through the locked door, I'd like now to say that I entered through an unlocked patio door' 

Come on now, WHO on this earth is daft enough to believe that McCann forgot which door he used when he checked on his three under four year old kids who he claimed were alone in a dark holiday apartment?

A DADDY who left his kids alone in the holiday apartment FIVE NIGHTS ON THE TROT who claims to have, on all of those nights, checked on them every 30 minutes, entering by the front locked door each time. DADDY DEAREST TOLD PORTUGUESE POLICE that on the night his kid vanished he did likewise, then SEVEN DAYS LATER HE GIVES POLICE A NICE NEW SHINY STORY - Fed them one of his tall tales or A BIG FAT PORKY IN OTHER WORDS.

Let's just think about this.  Let's forget about the McCanns for a moment.

Imagine a child, not Madeleine, but some other three year old child goes missing.  She has been left according to her parents, alone with her two year old siblings in a dark un/locked holiday apartment while on holiday abroad.  Five nights while the pair partied/dined/had a piss up, whatever you want to call it, with their buddies the kids are left.The parents tell the most unbelievable tales right from the off, as do their buddies, they lie to police, the press, the public.  To be blunt, they lie to everyone.  The police know they have lied.  Police in the country they holidayed and in their home country, both forces know they have lied.   Forensic evidence proves they were not truthful, and then the daddy puts the nail in his own coffin by deciding to tell police days later from his first story, that this first story his first witness statement was wrong and he needed to change it.  It is clear to police that he is lying as he speaks, lying in an attempt to make his story match that of his wife,who has pretty much gone overboard, a bit mental with her tales, AND they have been caught out, as forensics tell a different tale from what they have...later the cadaver dogs do likewise!

WHO DO YOU THINK THE POLICE WOULD SUSPECT OF HAVING INVOLVEMENT TO SOME DEGREE AT LEAST IN THE CHILD'S DISAPPEARANCE - The parents and buddies who had lied to police refused to co-operate, or some non existent mystery person?

So, what exactly is the Metropolitan Police doing in Portugal?  Oh yeah, their officers are sitting listening to witnesses being interviewed/re-interviewed by Portuguese Police.  Witnesses from 7 years ago!

Funny that, because most would think that they should be sitting listening to the McCanns being interviewed, or indeed, interviewing them, so that they the McCanns can provide explanation for the lies and inconsistencies in their stories, and those of their buddies who holidayed with them.   Time this lot were questioned/re-questioned, all of Oldfield's lies and nonsense put to the test also, together with those of the rest of the group they should be taking part in a re-enactment of events of that evening.

Why is it though, that when others are questioned or re-questioned that the press are onto it, the names of the persons splashed for all to see, yet SILENCE when it comes to any questioning that may have taken place by the Metropolitan Police concerning McCanns and their buddies?

I for one would LOVE to hear the McCanns explain away ALL the crap they and their buddies have dished up to the public over the past seven and a half years, because not a bit of what they have said makes any sense, and most of it is untruths, and NONE OF IT WAS AIMED AT DISCOVERING WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE.  They refused to answer when questioned by police and they refused to assist police with a reconstruction of events.  How could they ever claim they have left no stone unturned, with such a situation?

AND if after over THREE years the Metropolitan Police are still investigating - and don't have any of this bunch in their sights, something is far wrong!   

Gerry McCann has always praised the work of the Metropolitan Police in their Review of the missing Madeleine case, and their now Investigative Review, which if we are honest and don't beat about the bush, is not an inquiry/search for her, and certainly not a race against time to find a living child.

The Met know this child is not in the land of the living.   The lack of urgency tells us that they are not looking for a living findable little girl as Gerry McCann once described Madeleine. At best, if this is a genuine and honest investigation by the Met, they are looking to discover where the body of a dead child was 'buried/dumped, and who disposed of her body.'   And McCanns must know this too!  That is, they must know Madeleine is not alive, and they must know that is what the Metropolitan Police believe is the case.

But is it a murder inquiry?  

If it is, that takes us down a whole different avenue from that of 'an accident in the absence of her parents.'

What are the chances that some child murderer happened along entered the McCann apartment killed Madeleine and carried her off, or carried her off then killed her?

Zilch I would say!  Slim to nothing!   And no burglar broke in killed her and carried off her dead body.  That's not what burglars do.  That one is so far fetched that it beats all of Kate McCanns tales hands down knocks her off the top of the far-fetched tale, leader board.

Think about it.  A burglar would surely 'case the joint' he would know, if he had done his homework, that there were little kids alone inside. And little kids are a burglars worst nightmare - they wake and cry for all sorts of reasons at any given time, doesn't have to be a noise that wakes them, they sometimes just wake and need comforted, need attention.  NO burglar would take such a chance at apartment 5A of a child waking, or rather of THREE KIDS WAKING AND SCREAMING THEIR HEADS OFF and more to the point, the McCanns had nothing, no material goods of any great value that would cause a burglar to risk being caught, arrested.  If they had been watching the McCanns, one look at them, was enough for any burglar to establish that they had not two dimes to rub together.  They were pretty shabbily dressed in any footage, nothing about them screamed money, let alone wealth, quite the opposite in fact, their attire screamed - hope next pay check is in bank soonAnd that is exactly as it was why else would they have had to make mortgage payments on their home from Madeleine's Fund?

So unless a burglar was in need of one of Gerry McCanns sloppy collared T.shirts or a pair of Kate's shorty check pants, any burglar worth his salt would give McCanns apartment a miss just wouldn't be worth the effort, and not even if the crown jewels were in 5A would any burglar risk it with three kids ALL of whom might wake and scream their heads off, and a group of parents all who claimed to be going back and forth checking on the apartments every 15/30 minutes.

Any burglar chancing a break in at the McCann apartment or the apartment of any of their buddies would have to have been off their rocker.

One night Madeleine cried for over an hour according to one witness who lived above the McCann apartment?  Just what a burglar needs - crying kids!

If a burglar/intruder had been watching McCanns as they would have us believe, this burglar would more than likely know these kids cried in the absence of their parents.  And most likely this burglar would know that the McCanns had left the patio door open (so they say) so would not jemmy open a window and a burglar would know also that if there was anything of value it would NOT be in the kids bedroom!  A burglar would have been in the parents bedroom raking through drawers for items to steal!

This burglar would know if there was anything to steal it would be a wallet or purse, and he would know, as any of us would, that the McCanns would have these items with them when out dining. And even if they had left such items behind, I seriously doubt it would have been close to bursting with euros!

The most any burglar would have gotten at 5A was passports, and it is unlikely that a petty thief would be interested in those.

And good lord, what burglar would stop and open a window and window shutter to create a red herring as Kate McCann said?  If this individual a burglar/petty thief had somehow killed Madeleine, something as a burglar he has never done before, taken a human life, the life of a little girl - he would be more than panicked, yet we are to believe he opened windows to create red herrings, the guy would be shitting himself, and if we go with Redwood's timeline - not a chance in hell he did all that he would have had to, for this burglar scenario to be any way close to possible, to fit in with the McCanns and their buddies tall tale of this missing child to make it gel with Redwood's timeline.

So what is Redwood on about - possibly a burglar being disturbed by Madeleine?  

The burglar theory, cannot I would imagine go down well with the McCanns.  After all they have said that Madeleine was TAKEN FROM HER BED.  'Stolen' I believe is how they termed it.

Yes that person who went into an apartment and stole a little girl from her bed from her family.

Kate McCann was still stating this on Crimewatch UK in October 2013 -

"It's not us that has committed this crime, it's the person who has gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family"


- and on the very same programme, Andy Redwood was talking of a burglary gone wrong, not of a child STOLEN from her bed?

Redwood:

"POSSIBLY there is a scenario where Madeleine could have POSSIBLY disturbed someone trying to commit a burglary"

(
Funny how Redwood suggests an intruder/burglar may have been disturbed by Madeleine on the night of 3rd May 2007, and Kate McCann suggested the intruder did a dummy run the night previous to the child vanishing, 2nd May 2007, claiming that POSSIBLY the alleged intruder was disturbed by Madeleine and ran off.   So Madeleine kept disturbing intruders?  And what BURGLAR/INTRUDER who had been disturbed by a child or children crying, who having to flee the scene, would return the next night for more of the same? DIDN'T HAPPEN)

Redwood and Kate had perhaps best get together and have a little chat about this.

So, in this burglary scenario, is Redwood saying that Madeleine got out of bed and disturbed the burglar:-

  •  In the act of stealing, what exactly?  Nothing was touched in that apartment, nothing taken. Nothing tampered with or out of place.
  • Madeleine woke and disturbed the burglar as he came in through what, the patio door?
  • Madeleine woke and disturbed the burglar as he came in through the window? (do remember the window and shutter was NOT forced open but opened from the inside)

If it was any of these scenarios, a burglar would not kill a child in the apartment and carry her off, and neither would he carry off a living child.

Madeleine quite obviously IF she disturbed a burglar was AWAKE, she would hardly be carried off by him without her screaming her head off, and burglars don't come equipped with something to drug a child!

If Smithman is meant to be the burglar in Redwoods scenario, carrying off Madeleine, she was far from awake when sighted.

And can you really imagine a petty burglar/thief killing a child then strolling through the streets carrying her for all to see?

What complete and utter nonsense.  

And how would he have killed her, strangled her, suffocated her, hand over mouth?  Remember this is a burglar not a cold blooded killer.

A little 3 year old girl waking in a dark and unfamiliar holiday apartment sleepy headed getting out of bed seeing a figure in the dark was hardly any threat to a burglar.  She'd never be able to give anyone a description of him.   Just as she would NEVER have recognised OLDFIELD in the dark holiday apartment!  She would have been as afraid of a burglar as she would Oldfield, the man who was a stranger to her.

A burglar, not a killer, would NEVER decide to kill a child.  But let us humour Redwood, even if a burglar did, he's hardly likely to then go open a bedroom window and shutter to create a red herring, and supposing he had gained entry through the unlocked patio door, it would mean he would have closed it back over, the gates top and bottom of the stairs too, and then what, left by the front door, this man who was a thief not a child killer would be in a panicked state if he had killed a child accidentally or otherwise, he would not be planning red herrings, cleaning up or locking up doors in this apartment, he would know with the checking system supposedly in place by the parents that he had not a moment to spare that he had to get the hell out of there!

Story gets dafter by the minute!

Do we really think Redwood, the Met believe a burglar bumped off Madeleine and carried off her dead body?

Not a chance in hell!

And if Madeleine was in fact IN BED AND CRYING when she heard, say the sound of the burglar moving around, why would any burglar remove her from the bed?  The  burglar would just hot foot it out of there.

Would it not be strange too that these kids, who seem to have woken and cried for their parents attention at various times throughout that holiday, NEVER when the parents or Oldfield went into that apartment to check on them, did they wake, yet we are to believe that when this imaginary burglar/intruder entered the apartment the sound of him moving around the apartment woke Madeleine on supposedly the night of the 2nd AND the 3rd of May 2007.

What are the chances of that, that the McCann kids never woke on any of the checks made by their parents only woke when alleged intruders went into the apartment or when their parents were in their bed.   Bunkum!

What is more probable is that there was NO burglary, NO intruder and the chances are far greater that the little girl, a child prone to getting out of bed in the night to look for her parents and more especially when her younger siblings cried and disturbed her sleep, did exactly that and met with an accident at a time when her parents were not around!

The chances of that scenario are very much higher than any burglar killing the child or a child killer wandering around.

Now what else did Redwood say in that Crimewatch production of October 2013?

Redwood:

"Madeleine McCanns disappearance does on one reading of the evidence have all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction.  That would undoubtedly have involved reconnaisance"

Does it indeed, I think on one reading DCI Redwood must have missed the evidence of the dogs!

Missed the evidence that the window and shutter was NOT jemmied open, not forced.

Missed
the bit where Gerry McCann CHANGED HIS STORY.

Missed
Oldfield's lies.

Missed the bit where Russell O'Brien said he went into the McCann apartment on one occasion to check on the children, and Kate and Gerry McCann said -OH NO HE DIDN'T, NO ONE CHECKED ON OUR KIDS ON THAT NIGHT'

Missed the bit where Gerry McCann changed his story.

Missed the bit where Kate McCann changed her story more than once - the curtains whooshed they didn't whoosh etc.  Her claimed actions when she went to do her check of her children are as dodgy as Clarence Mitchell's hairpiece.

Missed every lie told since this kid vanished.

As for DCI Redwood's description of Madeleine's disappearance having all the hallmarks of a PRE-PLANNED ABDUCTION -  one would have to say it was pre-planned by idiots, not some professional or organised paedophile gang, who had monitored, had been looking to 'steal' a three year old British child from her bed, and had targeted Madeleine McCann.   Three kids alone in an apartment, and they take ONLY one?

Their pre-planning, and reconnaisance could only be described, as Gerry McCann might say - a DISASTER.

Is Redwood telling us that after ALL this pre-planning, the best the 'gang' who stole the child from her bed, from her family, could come up with was for one of them to wander through the streets of Praia da Luz with the child being carried and uncovered, not concealed in any way, as in the manner Smithman is said to have done, and Smithman is according to DCI Redwood his main suspect?

That is the daftest thing I have ever heard.    Three years of a Met investigation, 38 or whatever it is detectives, working on this and that is the BEST they can come up with?

Sounds as though Redwood's investigation is as much a disaster as the gang's pre-planning and reconnaisance!

I guess after 3 years of this Met investigation and Redwood's retirement looming, whether you believe in a whitewash or believe that DCI Redwood/Operation Grange has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the McCanns and their buddies for past 3 years and are just waiting to pounce on them rather depends on whether you believe in either of Redwood's two scenarios -

  • Possibly a burglary where Madeleine possibly disturbed the burglar, a burglar who then decided to remove her from the apartment later to kill her, or who killed her in the apartment and then removed her?
  • All the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction involving reconnaisance (by a bunch of fools who mucked up big time I would have to say) who didn't make ANY PLANS to conceal the child in any way, who didn't have a vehicle waiting to whisk the child off, who decided it best to walk through the streets of the town openly carrying her for all to see (that is of course IF Smithman is DCI Redwood's 'man.') and was in fact SEEN! 

Not forgetting Tannerman who morphed into Crecheman.    What did DCI Redwood have to say about him?  

"We're ALMOST certain now that this sighting is not the abductor"

'Almost' certain really doesn't quite cut it!    Why is he not CERTAIN?

This revelation moment, this family who Redwood said TOLD him/Met that THEY think it was their child being carried home that night who Jane Tanner saw, and Redwood is ONLY ALMOST certain?

You do not go changing an entire timeline as Redwood did for the Crimewatch Production UK on October 2013 which dealt with the disappearance of a child, unless you are absolutely positive in what you are saying.   That he did not say that he had firmly established that this man was on the footpath/location WHERE Tanner claims to have seen him - red flag.

And Redwood's NEW timeline does NOT explain Gerry McCanns story of the bedroom door of the children's bedroom being wide open at just after 9pm when Gerry McCann did his check.   If the intruder opened that bedroom door, the intruder was IN the apartment long before the time Redwood is saying Madeleine was removed.

And that is dafter than daft.  So much Redwood has not been able to explain to tie up, SO MUCH he didn't even attempt to in the Crimewatch Production.   You were to concentrate on his REVELATION MOMENT and nothing else.  And many did exactly that!

It would have been SO easy for Redwood to show the EXACT route this man took from the creche to his apartment, and the time it would have taken him to reach the location where Tanner supposedly saw him, that too could easily be established as surely this guy had to sign his daughter out of the creche and the time he did so would have been recorded.

Was there ever a crecheman?  And WHY would he be walking near to the McCann apartment. completely the wrong direction from his own apartment?

Crecheman unless he was both blind and deaf he would have, on that quiet street seen Tanner, seen Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins, heard Tanner flip flopping as she walked, heard the LOUD spoken McCann talking with Wilkins their voices would have carried.

And this crecheman - did he know Gerry McCann, Jez Wikins, Jane Tanner, did they know him, that is, would any of them recognise each other?   If they were all guests at the OC chances are they had seen each other at some point during the holiday.  Was creche dad someone who perhaps played tennis part of the group when McCann played?  Was creche dad dining at the tapas on that night or elsewhere?

Crecheman did not only come out of his apartment during his family holiday, on the night Madeleine vanished, to walk before Jane Tanner.  (though so little is known of him one might think they family stayed indoors until that night)  This guy his family if using the OC creche must have been around using the facilities, his daughter in the creche during daytime too?  Chances are he and McCann and the others became acquaintances, just like Wilkins, through tennis or whatever.  And of course chances are too that Jane Tanner had seen him before that evening within the resort - if the guy ever existed!

This guy too was crossing a road when Tanner is supposed to have seen him.

Are we to believe that this crecheman carrying his child, willy nilly crossed the road without looking for traffic coming from the direction where Tanner, Gerry McCann and Wilkins were standing, walking?

Are we to believe that this British dad didn't take anything to cover his child to keep her warm, that the mother of the child didn't think to give the dad a blanket to wrap the child, that they dropped this child off earlier in the evening at the creche and had taken her there on a cold evening dressed only in pyjamas?  That this family got dressed to go out for the evening, the father putting on a warm jacket long length trousers (not shorts) heavy shoes (the mother one would imagine would have done likewise, dressed warmly for the weather conditions) but that NEITHER thought to wrap the child warmly or dress her in warm clothing over her pyjamas, either to take her to be dropped off or when collecting her from creche later in the evening when it would have become much colder still - what a crock load of shit!

Are we to believe also that this crecheman willy nilly crossed the road without looking for traffic coming from the direction where Tanner, Gerry McCann and Wilkins were standing/walking?

Crecheman can talk.  It is not now simply what Tanner CLAIMS to have seen, crecheman has to have seen/heard Tanner, McCann, Wilkins how could he not?

And if he did - there can be no 'almost certain' about it for Redwood - Crecheman would have been able to tell the Met absolutely whether HE saw Tanner, McCann, Wilkins, and he has to have done if this story by Redwood about Crecheman is true.

The general consenus of opinion is that DCI Redwood invented crecheman.  I agree!

Whether it was to rid the investigation of the Tanner sighting as part of what some believe is his grand plan to pounce on the McCanns and their buddies, or whether he did so to 'assist' in a whitewash who knows.

Getting rid of Tannerman works for both scenarios.

Ridding Tannerman sighting more than helps Tanner out of a corner, and it more than helps Oldfield out of a sticky situation too.   If Tannerman was the alleged abductor, that window was open from 9.15 pm how could Oldfield not have spotted it while he was prowling around both inside and outside the apartment as he has claimed. How did Jane Tanner not see it when she did her check?   Tannerman morphing into crecheman helps both Tanner and Oldfield, helps the McCann abduction story in general.  Equally it can work against them?

So which is it?  What was Redwood aiming for by introducing crecheman?  Is it a whitewash?

A whitewash only becomes necessary when something needs hidden, when person/s need protecting from being caught out on their wrongdoing and depending on who requires the protecting plays a huge part in as to whether a whitewash would get the go ahead if you like, be sanctioned.

Is a whitewash then something that should be considered a possibility in this case?

Based on the facts and evidence I would have to say as Redwood might say - POSSIBLY, ALMOST, CERTAINLY!

Redwood said from the beginning, despite all of the facts in front of him the lies and inconsistencies in the stories told by this group, that he was treating Madeleine's disappearance as an abduction. 

He said also that the McCanns their buddies family members, persons they had known before holidaying in Portugal were not suspects.

More crucially he said he could not guarantee that he would solve it, but rather that he would come up with some sort of resolution.

Redwood retires from this investigation, retires from the Met it would seem leaving more questions than existed when he took over the investigation.

Is that really what any detective would want, to retire from an investigation leaving it unsolved?   I think not.  To retire with a feather in his cap re this case is what any lead detective would have wanted - but as Redwood himself in essence said, solving it was not on the agenda.  I guess he knew Dr Amaral the Portuguese team had already done that! 

Redwood hasn't found the missing piece of the puzzle the McCanns have harped on about for over seven years (or if he has he has popped it in the wrong slot - deliberately?) he has as far as I can see thrown more pieces into the mix, and none of them fit, not crecheman, not Smithman, that is, not those e. fits of Smithman the story behind them, like most things in this case, it doesn't add up!

As for Tanner having perhaps rolled over, spilled the beans - Had she done so would there have been any need for the pantomime that was Crimewatch, or any reason, if she had come clean to invent crecheman, any reason for the bunch to not have been arrested and charged before now with involvement in Madeleine's disappearance? A member of the group revealing all must surely be enough for this case to have been cracked wide open.  It hasn't been.

So at the end of another year, and if Tanner (or any other member of the group) has spilled the beans and no one has been as yet charged, the question needing answered more than ever is whitewash anyone?

Does the detective who will take over from Redwood, follow his lead? Are the McCanns comfortable with Redwood's departure and the installation of the new lead detective, whose name I do not know (been away a few weeks, lots to catch up on)

How do they feel about the current Portuguese Investigation?

As for Mr Murat his capacity as a witness - How do the McCanns feel about that? 

Does Kate McCann still wish him harm, wish him dead?

Would she like him to suffer fear and pain as she does Dr Amaral?

OR

Does Kate McCann wish Mr Murat a Very Merry Christmas?



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
18th December 2014














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Website Builder