Lying in the Sun

Gerry McCann & Crechedad

Gerry McCann and Crechedad

It's got to be asked - How does Gerry McCann feel about crechedad?

For 6 years the McCanns (not the Portuguese Police - THE McCANNS and CLARENCE MITCHELL) plugged this sighting by their holiday buddy Jane Tanner as being the guy who took Madeleine.

DCI Redwood comes along and blows that out of the water by introducing crechedad as being the guy Tanner saw. Crechedad being described by Redwood as an innocent father carrying home his 2 year old child.

Instantly on hearing of Crechedad, McCann would know that his tale of the open bedroom door was then suspect, likewise Oldfield's tall tale of an open bedroom door, his visit to the McCann apartment, under scrutiny, and suspicion surely by the Met?

I looked back several old interviews given by McCann and in most he speaks of the Tanner sighting as the abductor, carrying Madeleine off.

In one in particular, again an interview with Sandra Felgeuiras, he replies to a question put to him, with his usual smirk and smugness.

McCann had said that the alleged abductor was 'almost caught.'

Sandra Felgueiras asked McCann, by whom?

McCann replied - 'By Jane' (Tanner)

'A high risk strategy' McCann described the alleged abductors actions. You gotta laugh at the guy.

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Maddy_Cops_Prime_Witness.html

So Tannerman being wiped off the face of the earth, and replaced by Crechedad must have come as quite a blow to McCann, must have wiped that smug smirk from his face. Must have caused more than a few sleepless nights or anxious moments I would imagine. That is, unless of course, DCI Redwood was keeping McCann fully informed, and had told him that the Met were going to OVERLOOK his and Oldfield's tale of open bedroom doors!

Tannerman (as crechedad was originally known) the McCanns relied upon to give credence to their tale of abduction. In fact, Tannerman WAS their story!

So how did McCann feel to know that Redwood had removed Tannerman from the equation?

The removal of Tannerman to be replaced by crechedad was not all bad news though for McCann. It forced the focus on the Smithman sighting, which also helped McCann as he had an alibi for the time Smithman was spotted by the Smith family.

So although many thought the focus being on Smithman placed McCann in an awkward position, in many ways it helped his position I would say.

But that too depends on whether the timeline the McCanns provided was honest, and depends also as to whether DCI Redwood has just accepted these times as being a truthful account (and it has to be said, they don't score highly in this respect)

This whole case comes down to the timeline.

Dr Amaral always maintained that a proper timeline had to be established for the pieces to fall into place.

Did DCI Redwood do this? I think that is a big fat NO!

He appears to have worked on the timeline as produced by the McCanns and their buddies, stuck to it exactly, and weaved into and around it, his own tale of crechedad and burglars.

Indeed in Crimewatch 2013 Redwood stated that he had carried out a careful and critical (no less) analysis of the timeline, yet oddly in that very same production when he speaks of the timeline, he tells us he concentrated on the time from 8.30 pm to 10 pm, the time given as Kate McCanns check on the children.

He of course includes his tale of crechedad of how crechedad he is ALMOST certain was who Jane Tanner saw, and not an abductor. He tells us how crechedad and his wife/partner themselves feel that they are who Jane Tanner saw that night.

How odd that. If crechedad and his partner had always thought he was the person who Tanner saw, why did he not in all of those six years shout it from the rooftops?

He absolutely could not have missed it, the launch of Tannerman by Mitchell, nor could he have missed it on the McCann website and the many many news reports and documentaries this case has produced over the years. That is not possible, and certainly not possible for someone who holidayed there at that time, to not take an interest, especially when he and his wife knew he had walked, according to Redwood's tale, close to the McCann apartment on that very night that Madeleine was reported as missing.

And as many have asked WHY, taking account of the location of the creche, WHY was crechedad walking anywhere close to the McCann apartment?

In the Crimewatch production also, the presenter states that crechedad was walking near to the apartment, but has this innocent dad CONFIRMED that he was walking, on that night, at the spot where Tanner claims to have seen him?

There really was NO explanation as to why crechedad, if he was spotted where Tanner claims to have seen a man walking with a child, why he would even have been there!

How did it come about that he was in that location, coming from the direction he would have to have been, to have been seen by Tanner?

He was WAY off track if he had just left the creche, and WAY off track for his own vacation rental.

It makes no sense whatsoever that any daddy would carry his 2 year old child between their vacation rental accommodation to a night creche, on a dark, cold and windy night, dressed only in pyjamas.

It makes even less sense that he would when collecting his daughter from the creche then take 'scenic route' home, if you get my drift. Why would he do that, prolong the time the child was out in the cold night air by carrying her on a tour through the village, because if what DCI Redwood is telling us is that crechedad is Tannerman, and was spotted where Jane Tanner claims - then this guy didn't 'head home' directly after collecting his kid from that creche!

Now why would that be? Why would he decide on a tour of the village at that time of night with his kid in the cold night air?

Or, why would DCI Andy Redwood invent the tale?

It has never sat comfortably with me that Redwood stressed that he is only 'almost' certain crechedad is Tannerman.

It rather leaves the door wide open for McCanns to still promote Tannerman, and that is exactly what they are still doing on their website!

But why can he NOT be sure?

This guy, Crechedad was either at the spot Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a child on that night, at that time, OR HE WAS NOT.

It isn't rocket science.

And if he was, he HAD TO HAVE SEEN OR HEARD, Tanner, her feet flapping on the pavement as she trudged up the street in flip flops, and he had to have seen and HEARD THE EXTREMELY LOUD Gerry McCann speaking with Jez Wilkins on the same quiet street.

So why is Redwood, only 'almost' certain?

And if it wasn't crechedad at that spot at that time. Who was it?

AND where exactly was it that he and his wife dined out that night?

But back to Redwood.

Redwood didn't change the timeline as such, what he did was replaced Tannerman with crecheman/dad

Changed the time at which the McCanns had said Madeleine was abducted (around 9:10 pm ) to a nice new time of around 9:55 PM just prior to Kate McCanns check of the children.

So he didn't change the timeline, he stuck to what the McCanns have stated.

And what if the times they provided are not correct at all? They certainly don't add up, and they don't appear to have been tried and tested by Redwood, just ignored.

Yes, yes, Redwood said he carried out a careful and critical analysis which was key. But if he did, then he knows the timeline doesn't make sense. He knows Matt Oldfield, Russell O'Brien, Jane Tanner, together with Kate and Gerry McCann, have been telling big fat lies when it comes to their timeline.

Which begs the question, what exactly was Redwood trying to achieve by Crimewatch 2013?

By doing what he did Redwoods 'change' allowed for Smithman, the guy seen by the Smith family to perhaps be considered as the alleged abductor. But did it allow for Gerry McCann to be considered as being Smithman?

McCann has his alibi for this time!

But could an intruder get from apartment 5A carrying Madeleine, to the point where Smithman was seen in such a short space of time?

I don't know the distance involved, so cannot determine if this would have been possible.

And what would have been the alleged intruders route, to have reached the spot where the Smith family spotted him?

Has Redwood established the route taken, if Smithman is the alleged abductor?

We know no one jemmied the shutter and window that it was an inside job, opened from the inside.

Has Redwood figured out WHO opened it and WHY?

Cannot think that any intruder, who had been monitoring the movements of the McCanns and their buddies (as the McCanns would have us believe) would open a window and shutter when they had absolutely no reason to, and especially he would not do so as he would be seen by the McCanns buddies who claim to have been running back and forth to do checks of the children all entering their apartments by the front doors, so they say. Front doors which were RIGHT BESIDE the McCann kids bedroom window. And not only this, Oldfield claims to have been listening at windows.

What intruder would open a window right beside the front doors where a group of people claim to have been popping in and out through same, and listening AT THE VERY WINDOW the intruder is alleged to have opened?

ONE THAT HAS BEEN INVENTED IN A BADLY TOLD STORY PERHAPS?

We know that front door was not damaged in any way, no forced entry.

And we know too, according to Kate McCanns statement that the bottom gate, top gate and patio door were not disturbed, still closed when she arrived at the apartment.

Which means that if the alleged abductor entered the apartment by this route he was careful, when carrying Madeleine from the apartment, to close over the patio door behind him, lock the child safety gate at the top of the stairs behind him also, and close over too the the gate at the bottom of the stairs.

So has DCI Redwood established how the intruder gained access, and how does he believe the guy exited the apartment with Madeleine?

And what makes DCI Redwood believe this alleged intruder struck after Oldfield's visit and just before Kate McCann arrived at 10 PM?

WHAT EVIDENCE DOES HE HAVE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY?

Oldfield didn't see Madeleine at 9,30 pm on his visit, and he claims not to have looked to see if she was in bed.

What if she was gone by this time? Already removed from the apartment by 9.30 pm?

How much would that throw out, Redwood's timeline? His story/theory that Madeleine was removed at just prior to 10 PM.

Redwood did not provide evidence to support this theory. He simply made it fit with the sighting by the Smith family.

But what if Smithman was not someone carrying off Madeleine. Rather mucks up the whole darn lot!

So what exactly did Redwood base his theory that the alleged intruder struck after Oldfield carried out his alleged check, and Kate McCann arriving to carry out her check?

Who in Redwood's theory did he believe opened that window and shutter, and from the inside?

And why would someone with only minutes to spare, knowing someone would be calling to check on the kids stop to muck around with windows and shutters, why would they even open them when they would know that the tapas lot were always at any given time (according to their story) checking on kids at that side of the building, listening at shuttered windows according to Oldfield?

Makes no sense.

Redwood and his team had to have a theory as to how this alleged intruder gained access and how he exited the building. He did, didn't he? The nice DCI Redwood wouldn't just have made it all up now would he?

If Smithman, like Crechedad was an innocent dad taking his kid home also, where did the alleged intruder vanish to, after escaping apartment 5A unseen, carrying Madeleine?

And if Smithman was not an abductor, let us say, but another innocent dad, that would make a lot more sense. A strange coincidence, yes, that so many little girls were being carried home as described, dressed only in pyjamas (and always by daddy, never mummy) but it would make more sense in that it points then to the McCann party if they were involved in Maddie's disappearance having a very much longer period of time to have removed the child from the apartment.

Dr Amaral was absolutely right, without a re-enactment to establish a proper, and accurate timeline, little in this regard will make any sense. It is a diligence which absolutely has to be carried out.

And we can see from DCI Redwood's, let us call it, uncertainty, as to whether crechedad is Tannerman, that his careful and critical analysis of the timeline was not up to par. In fact, it was laughable!

Had he carried out such an analysis - the McCanns and their buddies would have been hauled in!

DCI Redwood simply saying Tannerman is now Crecheman, therefore Madeleine has to have been removed from the apartment just prior to 10 PM really doesn't cut it. It is as nonsensical as the tapas timeline, and their story of abduction.

I don't know which of the two parties, the McCanns and their buddies or DCI Redwood and his huge team of Met detectives have let this child down more. His team, being described on Crimewatch as elite!

The Crimewatch production in October 2013 in essence broadcast two different accounts of the same story

The one which was shown as being the movements of the McCanns and their buddies, so much of which was NOT TRUE to their police witness statements, and in which the correct positioning of bedroom doors and much more were not accurate, positively misleading to the viewer, and especially so to any viewer who had not followed the case.

And then we had the sketch plans which were accurate as to interior of the McCann apartment, but the narrative by DCI Redwood which accompanied his part in this production was a load of bullshitting.
-
'Almost certain crechedad was Tannerman?

Doesn't quite cut it! He should have been making A POSITIVE STATEMENT HERE WITH NO ROOM FOR MANOEUVRE, there should have been NO DOUBT whatsoever, as as I said, Crechedad, if he is who Tanner saw, he absolutely MUST have seen and heard, Tanner, McCann and Wilkins on that quiet street. How could he not?

And as to his careful and critical analysis of the timeline which he considers 'key' - Redwood made no mention whatsoever of Gerry McCanns check of his kids, nor of Matthew Oldfield's alleged check, all part of this timeline - but went straight from 8.30 PM (the time the McCanns say the left the apartment to head out to tapas bar) to 10.00 pm - Kate McCanns check.

The production was inaccurate at best, and one can only ponder as to why the name 'PAYNE' was omitted, and why we have Oldfield returning to the table AFTER McCann left to do his check?

So how does the introduction of crechedad affect Gerry McCann?

Does it bolster his abduction tale, making him happy, making him feel more sure of himself OR does it make him seriously uncomfortable knowing his safety net perhaps has been taken from under him?

All comes down to whatever WAS DCI Redwood's agenda, his remit, and to how much McCann is kept in the loop, how cosy the Met and the McCanns really are.

Whichever it is - DCI Redwood's tale so far of crechedad and critical analysis of the timeline, are as far fetched as the McCanns tale of abduction.

It is certainly disturbing that after all these years the Met are still at sixes and sevens (on the surface at least) as to who removed Madeleine from the apartment, why they removed the child?

What is as clear as day is that the McCanns and their buddies, their stories simply don't add up.

What is also clear is that the Met absolutely must know if they are working on a murder inquiry, and if they are considering Smithman as a suspect, they must know, of the persons we keep hearing are NOW suspects, those recently interviewed by the Met, which of them resemble this image of Smithman. They must know also, if these persons interviewed are known burglars, child killers, paedophiles or whatever.

Or, as some still cling to the hope, the Met are working on the tall tale told by the McCanns, getting to the bottom of what they have been hiding, as for sure, that is exactly what they have been doing. Why else the lies?

So how does Gerry McCann feel about Crechedad or Smithman for that matter..?

And how does Jane Tanner feel about Crechedad?

How do ALL of the McCann buddies feel about Crechedad?

How come not a one of them had a single thing to say about Redwood's Revelation?

Wonder what DCI Wall will come up with!

Hopeful closure as this crap has gone on way too long!

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
17th March 2015

Main Navigation

Gerry McCann & Crechedad