Lying in the Sun



We have the Metropolitan Police, DCI Andy Redwood to be precise having a revelation moment.

Due to said 'revelation moment' he changed the timeline completely in the case of a missing girl, a child who may have died accidentally in the holiday apartment where her parents left her and her toddler brother and sister, all children were under the age of 4 years of age, or she may have been murdered. The evidence gathered suggests that the child was NOT alive when removed from the apartment.

WHO carries off a dead body?  A burglar who messed up.  Or a paedophile who wanted a child?

I think neither!  If either/or entered that apartment, it was not with the intention of killing a child and carrying off her dead body!

SO, who would have greatest need to remove a dead child from an apartment?

Neither a burglar nor a paedophile would have had the time to clear up so well as to not leave any evidence of their ever being there, especially when it was never their intention to remove a dead child, they did not go prepared for such a scenario.

Neither would have planned to kill a child, so if by some bizarre reason they then did, they would be panicked, and in panic I would think they would get the hell out of there, and leave the dead body behind, they would not then walk around the village carrying the dead child for all to see. 

And if a burglar or a paedophile, then we would have to assume that they both would have known the area very well indeed, and if either of them had committed this crime against Madeleine, which DCI Redwood said had on first reading, all the hallmarks of a planned abduction/possible burglary gone wrong, then they would never be employed as party planners let alone, allowed to plan a crime as they messed up big time.

Based on this alone, it seems rather unlikely to put it mildly that someone, a stranger entered the McCann apartment and removed the child, dead or alive.

DCI Redwood claims that he discovered that a British father was carrying his two year old daughter home from the evening creche facility, and he is ALMOST CERTAIN that this is who Jane Tanner, the McCanns buddy saw carrying a child, and therefore ALMOST CERTAIN this is not the alleged abductor.

Based on NOT BEING CERTAIN he completely changed the timeline of events.

He points everyone in the direction of the Smith sighting, oddly enough the Smith sighting is so very similar to the one claimed by Jane Tanner.   Uncanny eh?  Two guys walking around this village in Portugal dressed the same, each carrying a child who was dressed the same, both kids barefooted on a cold night, dressed only in jimjams, and the male carrying the child ALL cosy and warm with his long pants, warm jacket and heavy shoes.  


One, we are led to believe is possibly the alleged abductor, the other we are to believe is this British dad - crechedad!  And both guys have the same style of dress, and both are carrying kids dressed only in nightwear.  

To crechedad.

DCI Redwood was VERY VERY CAREFUL to make it clear he was only ALMOST CERTAIN that the man Tanner saw was this British dad (making sure nothing if it ever came back to bite him on the ass about this revelation moment could be made stick?)

The McCanns on their website made sure that they kept Tanner sighting on there, and their reason for doing so was due to DCI Redwood's UNCERTAINTY as to whether the man Tanner claimed to have seen was in fact Redwood's British 'dad.'  

Redwood's uncertainty giving them legitimate reason to keep that image on their site?

I rather think they both have played a blinder here (planned it together?) each getting something they need out of crechedad story.  McCanns get to keep Tannerman, while at the same time Redwood gets the public to believe in crechedad, which very much helps the McCanns, Tanner and Oldfield.   Redwood gets the public to concentrate on Smith sighting too, which really is right up McCanns alley as he has witnesses to testify he was in tapas at this time.

Redwood has by introducing crechedad taken the heat off the McCann party, and it doesn't make a hoot of difference to him if the guy in the Smith sighting is ever found.  He tried.  He pointed everyone in that direction.  Not his fault if he could not find the guy!

Everyone is happy!

That Crimewatch production months and months in the making, trailers for weeks on end before - it was screened announcing DCI Redwood had a revelation he wanted to tell the public of.

Now, if any of them thought for a moment that Madeleine was alive being held by paedophiles (in a hellish lair in Portugal as the McCann private detectives claimed, and for which the British public donated £hundreds of thousands for Edgar the PI to come up with that little  nugget) WHY in HELL would they wait MONTHS AND MONTHS before revealing this crucial information, this crucial revelation which could help the child, help them trace the hellish lair and release her from her pain and suffering - they waited to tell the world in a production of Crimewatch?

Surely that would have been 'breaking news' but it WASN'T!   

McCanns/Mitchell all along have manipulated what stories hit the news headlines, there was no reason in the world for this information not to have been made known as soon as - not talking about the announcement that there was a revelation moment, that got plenty of air time, we are talking the specifics of what was the revelation moment, WHY it being so crucial to the case was HELD BACK FOR MONTHS UNTIL CRIMEWATCH?

They made a trailer, a movie trailer, which was shown for weeks on end.  The public or more importantly, Madeleine, was to wait for release of the movie before she could get a chance of being found.

But I guess Madeleine could just be A BRAVE little girl a while longer, while she waited,  just as her mother Kate McCann appealed for her to be in one of their Christmas Crackers 2007-  'Be brave sweetheart.'

(Madeleine was 4 years old when her mother appealed for her to be BRAVE, this child who at 4 would not know the meaning of being brave, would not know how to be brave when away from her family, when in the hands of paedophiles as they claimed, this child who her mother said in her diary, FEARS PAIN - what a strange thing to have said - NO child likes the pain when having fallen grazed a leg, a hand or whatever, but to say that a child FEARS PAIN?  When would a child so young have expressed their FEAR of pain?  PAIN caused by what exactly?)

There seems to be two camps in reference to DCI Redwood's revelation moment.

  • Those who believe he invented crechedad (this group also divided, as crechedad IF an invention, could have been created to assist the tapas lot, as it does help them somewhat out of the hole which is their unbelievable story, and then there are others who think it is a master plan, the genius of Redwood, creating such a tale to fool the McCanns, and their lot into a false sense of security, and that he will sometime in the future pounce on them, arrest them - but oopsy, he has retired now)

  • Those who believe crechedad exists (and had held onto the VERY pyjamas his daughter had worn, what 5/6 years previously, and he too had kept the VERY same clothing he had worn on that night, so that presumably he could model the outfit when DCI Redwood knocked on his door sometime in the then future.)

No matter what is the truth of this 'crechman/dad' tale by DCI Redwood, it is the fact that he despite having this revelation moment, he claimed NOT TO BE CERTAIN it was the man Tanner had seen, but nevertheless he would hype it up, change the timeline of events, and see to it that this story of the British dad went around the globe.

Now McCanns who played their part in the Crimewatch Production, other than keeping the image of Crecheman on their website, as being the alleged abductor, have not openly (not that I know of) challenged DCI Redwood, never uttered a word to say how they felt about their buddy Jane's sighting being gotten rid of, or ALMOST GOTTEN RID OF.  Neither did Jane Tanner.  She had nothing to say either.   Not even, a simple 'I'm so glad it has been proved I was not lying, that I did see a man carrying a child.'  Zilch from Tanner.

DCI Redwood with his crechedad tale really did make matters very much murkier than they already were.

But there is ONE person who can clear it ALL up for the public, for the Metropolitan Police/Andy Redwood, for the McCanns, so that they are able to make an informed and correct decision as to whether they should REMOVE FROM/KEEP THE IMAGE OF THE TANNER SIGHTING ON THEIR WEBSITE -  Enter CRECHEDAD!

Crechedad can tell the world what he seen and heard on that night.

He can tell us if when crossing the road in front of Jane Tanner - presumably he looked before crossing said road, in the direction from where Tanner was coming from, and in the direction where McCann and Wilkins were standing talking, particularly so when carrying his child, her safety would be paramount to him, he would not just walk willy nilly out into the road where vehicular traffic coming along was a possibility -  whether he saw her, heard her flip flop sandals clip, clopping along the pavement, whether he saw Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins standing chatting, whether he heard their voices which would without doubt have carried, especially that of the loud McCann, on such a quiet street at that hour of night. 

Crechedad HAD to have seen or heard them, if he was indeed who Tanner claims to have seen.

(and let us not forget Tanner said she passed Gerry McCann and Jez on same side of the street as she was walking.  McCann and Wilkins claim NOT to have seen her.  Claim not to have seen a man carrying a child.  McCann claims he and Wilkins were on the other side of the street.  Wilkins disagrees with McCann on this count.  He agrees with Tanner's version, that he was standing talking to McCann on the same side as Tanner has claimed close to the side gate of the McCann apartment so very close to crechedad a distance where crechedad would have not only seen but heard them talking)

And, has the Portuguese Police authority who are also investigating at this time, have they interviewed crechedad?

The Portuguese to my knowledge have made NO comment as to the timeline being messed about by Redwood.  Does this mean they are in agreement or what?

Crechedad could clear up ANY UNCERTAINTY Redwood may have, in a flash!   So why hasn't he?

Why did Redwood not give reason for his lack of certainty?  Explain that he is uncertain because the man who he thinks might be crechedad claims not to have seen or heard a thing, claims not to have seen Tanner, McCann and Wilkins,  as he wandered through the streets of Praia da Luz?

Perhaps because it is IMPOSSIBLE for this dad NOT to have seen or heard, Tanner, McCann, Wilkins?

Does crechedad exist?

If he does - time for Wall to ask him to clear up a few matters!

And if he does, he will also have been able to confirm that he was not Smithman, as how could he have failed to see the Smith family!

So we are still left with TWO guys walking around that night all details about them both SO SIMILAR.  What are the chances of that?

But ain't it just odd that McCanns didn't/don't challenge Redwood changing their story, their sighting (as in Tanner's sighting) in any big way, and Redwood doesn't/didn't challenge the McCanns for keeping on their website, the image of Tannerman, the sighting which he claims is a British tourist taking his child home, and who morphed into crechedad?

A wicked web do they together weave?
28th December 2014

Website Builder