Replies June 15
Thomas
I think this is one best left for those interested to get on with. Said what little I had to on this in a blog a long while back, to encourage it now by affording attention, takes from the case of missing Madeleine.
Anita
Agreed there is mystery surrounds the truth about the E.Fits.
Where we will have to agree to disagree is as to the McCanns not finding them relevant. If we consider the story of the E.fits to be true accepting their account, then I would have to say, for the McCanns to have had the E.Fit images drawn up, they must have felt they would be helpful to their 'search' - I use the term 'search' loosely.
It would be difficult to understand if this story is true, how they could find the image of Tannerman, the faceless sketch of a man seen carrying a child in comparison to two very clear, frontal images, with very clear facial detail to have more relevance.
If true it raises many questions, not least who commissioned these E.Fits, who had them in their possession all of these years?. Why did Metropolitan Police sit on them, not make them public just as McCanns had held them back also for years.
No urgency there then to find Madeleine. Obviously tracing this findable little girl as Gerry McCann refers to Madeleine was not dependent on these E.Fit images being out there, not according to the McCanns and the Metropolitan Police, both failing to distribute them.
In the case of a missing child such crucial information to have been held back, by the parents and the Metropolitan Police, and no one questions either party WHY they did not seize this opportunity?
Safe to say I smell a rat.
On the other hand, if not true, who really knows when these images were created and by whom? That Redwood would suddenly begin to use them for publicity for his Crimewatch production, all a bit suspect, with film trailers weeks before publishing them. Now what kind of police do that, have a trailer screened for weeks on end before announcing a lead such as an e.fit image of a suspect in a child abduction case, which is what Redwood refers to this as being. Now that stinks for starters. You want to find the missing child or the person responsible for her disappearance you get the info out there asap. You don't muck about advertising the fact in a movie style trailer. You don't let the perpetrator know they will be coming after him, but hell, not for a few weeks yet, not until they were done advertising the fact, and not before it was to be shown on Crime Watch.
I don't believe the story re these E.Fits. Police don't hold back E.Fits, and neither do parents, not parents who have their own investigation running, their own website where they post images of everything else. Parents who pay no regard for the law, who take it upon themselves to do as they please, who do not respect the advice given by police, as in the case of the identifying mark in Madeleine's eye. As in the McCanns telling the media Madeleine was abducted before any investigation had a chance to begin. To have posted these E.Fits, on their website, what harm would that have done? None of the other images on there have proved fruitful. If the McCann investigation was as Gerry McCann tells us, a case of leaving no stone unturned, why then did they leave a massive great rock unturned?
Everyone was to suddenly forget Tannerman and concentrate on these crucial E.Fits said Redwood, yet he had sat on them for what 18 months, and the McCanns for 5 years when they failed to make them public.
Stinks, stinks, stinks.
These E.Fits are definitely relevant to this case but for ALL THE WRONG reasons I would say Anita. Relevant as in relevant to support DCI Redwood's fantastic tale. Relevant to finding Madeleine, a burglar/petty thief, well that to me is a whole other issue.
Someone would need to ask the McCanns directly preferably in front of a viewing audience some very pertinent questions in respect of the E.Fits:
Who suggested they have them drawn up?
When did they first cast eyes on them?
What did they first think when they saw them?
Were they delighted at having such a magnificent lead?
Were the excited about launching them into the public domain and if not WHY not?
Who exactly provided the descriptions for each E.Fit?
Who made the decision to NOT publish them?
Gerry McCann said that he and Kate are party to ALL DECISION MAKING.
How does that go down. Parents having E.Fits drawn up and then not using them? Never mentioning them when in interview when being asked face to face, directly if they had any other information, any leads, sightings which were relevant.
Remember, Gerry and Kate McCann between them could not come up with any new credible information or sighting when asked by Darshna Soni and Sandra Felgeuiras. They touched on the Tanner sighting but said nothing of the E.Fits.
In that interview where they stutter and stammer scramble around trying to come up with any sighting at all, they were clearly, genuinely flustered by the question. It was not a case of as is their usual way, rattling off a lie right away, they were caught on the back foot. I believe if they had had E.Fits stashed away at that time, they would not have been so flustered. They would have been more on their guard ready with the usual tactic, giving a reply completely unconnected to the question asked of them, hitting the ball into the long grass. They would have been more prepared.
In Kate McCanns book she mentions the Smith sighting so we can take it that she found it relevant, but NOT relevant enough to tell the world through her book that she had E.fits images tucked away, not relevant enough to include the image in her book, which would not have cost a single dollar to do? How come they didn't?
E. Fit story to me reeks of something dodgy, underhand. It is certainly not what we are being asked to believe it is.
Those E.Fits are relevant all right, but to what, and to whom - they were not produced and presented by Redwood so that he may trace any alleged abductor that much I am sure of.
If Redwood had a few burglars in mind as having entered the McCann apartment, he knew who he was looking for, not hard in Praia da Luz to trace burglars, and he would most certainly know if the persons he was looking for resembled those E.Fits or not. Why get the world to look for the images on the E.Fits if they don't resemble the suspects, the burglars?
Redwood pulled a fast one?
Jane Tanner said nothing when her Tannerman was kicked to the kerb? McCanns say nothing either, and they continue with Tannerman on their site, and still they DON'T bother PUTTING SUSPECT Number 1 on their website (thank you to the person who messaged to tell me this)
Now if that doesn't stink..?
And almost 4 and a half years of this guff from Metropolitan Police? You could find a needle in a haystack quicker than Met are working to find this petty burglar.
If it was an organised paedophile ring, one might understand the Met taking a while with matters, but still not over 4 years, I mean that is quite an outrageous length of time, but when they have been searching for a petty thief all sounds kinda suspicious to me.
Thirty or so crack Metropolitan Police detectives, some from the murder squad, £12 million, 4 + years, looking for a petty thief, AND THE PETTY THIEF IS STILL AT LARGE?
By any standards, that kinda makes the Met look like mugs!
And do we really think the Met are enjoying being made to look like mugs? Do we really think that they are about to pounce on either the McCanns or their buddies, or even a patsy, certainly not a burglar or an abductor that is for sure?
Tragic that the life of this little girl means so little to so many. So many happy to just accept the crap fed to them. But I reckon those who accept it have their own sick reasons for doing so.
Imagine Anita if the Portuguese Police ran a trailer saying they would announce in a few weeks time a revelation moment, tease the public with stories of a new timeline, a new E.Fit. A story of a burglary gone wrong, a local burglar who they cannot trace. Do we think the McCanns and their supporters would have sat back as they have with Redwood's Revelation Moment and just accepted this? There would have been a furore.
And why have the supporters just accepted that the McCanns kept from the public for FIVE years these E.Fits?
And the press, no stories about the bungling Met, finding nothing after four long years.
It simply doesn't add up.
None of these people could find the time to help Portuguese Police with their inquiries, none would make the time to return to Portugal to help Madeleine.
For me that is perhaps the biggest red flag of all.
Think about it, your friend's three year old daughter supposedly is abducted, you were in their company when this happened, you are a vital witness. Would you not walk to the ends of the earth to help the child?
Of course you would.
Any decent person, any person innocent of any involvement would do exactly that.
These people didn't!
Each and every one of them lawyered up. Each and every one of them REFUSED to help police with enquiries. Each and every one of them REFUSED to help Madeleine, the little girl they believed was being held by paedophiles.
Now what kinda person does that?
It pretty much tells us ALL we need to know about them about this case, how much it stinks!
If Kate McCann and Fiona Payne think riding a bike for a few days somehow makes it all okay to have failed Madeleine and all of their children, they are more deluded than I ever imagined them to be.
Barry G
Your thoughts are as valid as any others, and not to be dismissed as some might not like to hear such a thing. The Gaspar Statements are of course relevant, to what degree? But they should definitely not be dismissed. If Madeleine was being abused in this way, by someone in the holiday group or other, she may indeed have been hiding from the perpetrator. It is a case were so many lies have been told, that absolutely anything is possible. The McCanns themselves believed their daughter had been taken by paedophiles. Kate McCann, her ridiculous comment that she hoped they would be respecting her daughter and that Madeleine would be giving them her tuppence worth has got to be the most sick comments to come out of this case. She cannot write something so graphic as what she did in her book Madeleine, and on the other hand. then come out with a shed load of shit like, she hopes Madeleine's captors are treating her with respect, or that a 4 year old child would be giving her abductors her tuppenceworth. What planet does she live on? A four year old child torn from her family would be terrified beyond words, suffering physical pain beyond belief in the hands of paedophiles. What goes on in Kate McCanns mind is frightening! The paedophile angle is not one I lean towards, but certainly not one, when having read the Gaspar statements that can be ruled out. I don't believe Dr Katherina Gaspar would have invented such a story. I believe she either rightly or wrongly believed Dr David Payne to be a threat to young children that she honestly believed that he has an unhealthy interest in them, and any child in his company is at risk.
Most children abused in whatever way their attackers are more often than not someone close, a family member, close friend of family.
Dr Katharina Gaspar was quite correct to make the statement she did to police regarding her fears for children in the care of Dr David Payne, where she also expressed what she witnessed Dr David Payne his behaviour when in Gerry McCanns company, conduct she considered inappropriate which she felt was directed towards a very young Madeleine during a holiday previous to the Portugal trip.
I know of no reason why this doctor would lie. It is pf course possible she misread a situation, but that absolutely I would hope has been thoroughly investigated, and it is also most probably unlikely.
A Dr would not be keen to go against fellow doctors, unless she was sure of what she witnessed.
It is another doubt regarding the conduct of this group of doctors which hangs over them.
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
13th June 2015
