I share your concerns regarding the competency of the on-going Scotland Yard Review.My concerns, specifically, relate to an announcement made by the detective leading the review, Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, back in April 2012The review, at that point, had been going on for a year when Redwood announced to the media that he believed Madeleine McCann had been abducted by a stranger.Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger"That's it then, I thought at the time ... they must have uncovered some new evidence to lead them to such a certain conclusion.The re-opening of the case must be imminent, I assumed. This compelling new evidence will be shared with the Portuguese police, and the 'stranger' who Scotland Yard were convinced had taken the child would be hunted down. So I waited ... and waited ... and waited.Nothing. My concern is, if the review was only half way through, and a year later, with it still in progress we know, with certainty, that it WAS only half way through, why did Redwood make that definitive statement at all ? It does not inspire confidence
Following on from my previous comment, I have been pondering what evidence Andy Redwood based his conclusion ( That Madeleine was abducted by a stanger ) on.Given that he announced this conclusion a year ago ( whilst the enquiry was only mid way through, at most ) we can safely assume, I think, that the evidence was not ground-breaking or 'new' ... had it been, then surely, it would have prompted the re-opening of the case in Portugal. So the evidence that convinced Chief Inspector Redwood, of the Yard, that a stranger had abducted Madeleine McCann must be already existing evidence.What could it be though ? ... I mean, even the McCanns themselves, who, at great expense, have translated and trawled through every page of the police files , have nothing to offer in the way of evidence that even 'suggests' their child was abducted.To this day, the only 'evidence' they ( the McCanns ) profer, is that they KNOW madeleine was abducted because :1) They know they, themselves, weren't involved in her disappearance2) The way the room was leftThat's it really.It cannot be, can it, that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, has based his conclusion that the child was abducted by a stranger on nothing more substantive than the parents 'told him so' ? ... oh, and on 'the way the room was left' ( which deserves a post all it's own )
Inspector Amaral's book gives what I think is the majority of the "evidence" available, and would, I believe, hve sorted the whole matter out if he had not been removed (at whose instigation?) from the case. I have seen extracts from the book and if you can get a copy in English it is probably a good read. There was an English copy available on the web but don't know if it is still around! Try Google.
By typing 'Amaral's truth of the lie' into google, both the book and documentary are available from several sources.Having read the book, and watched the documentary, I agree that Amaral presented all the fundamental evidence available to the Portugueses police. It is the SAME evidence Scotland Yard has been reviewing for the past two years, and I am astonished that Andy Redwood and his team could have looked at that 'same' evidence and come to a conclusion that was so far removed from the conclusion arrived at by the Portuguese police ( who found nothing in the available evidence to convince them that Madeleine had been 'abducted by a stranger' ) When we revisist that evidence ( which is available in the police files ) we are bound to ask what was it that convinced Andy Redwood to disagree with his Portuguese counterparts ? The ONLY evidence available that could possibly point toward a stranger abduction would be physical evidence ( forensics ) or witness statements.We know that there was was no physical ( forensic ) evidence that suggested abduction, and that won't change how ever long the case is 'reviewed'.So Redwood must have been convinced by the statements of the witnesses.I would like to know which of Kate McCann's statements he chose to accept, and be convinced by, given that she was the most crucial witness of all. Did he accept the original statement she made to the police the day after her child went missing, when she said the curtains were open when she went into the room to find her child missing ? ... or did he accept her altered statement when she later told the media ( including Oprah ) that the curtains were still closed when she returned to the apatment, only 'fhooshing' open in a sudden gust of wind ? This is important evidence that impacts on other witness statements and dramatically affects the 'forensic analysis of the timeline of events' Chief Inspector Redwood claims his team carried out, which had 'identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act' You see, if Redwood believes Kate McCanns statement to the police ... that the curtains were open when she went to the apartment at 10.00pm ( to find Madeleine missing ) then he would be working on the premise that the child went missing some time between 9.30pm ( when Oldfield checked on the McCann kids and the curtains were closed ) and 10.oopm when Kate McCann returns to the apatment to find the curtains open.If, on the other hand, he has chosen to accept Kate McCann's altered statement, as given to the media, that the curtains were still closed when she got to the apartment at 10.00pm, then he must be working on the premise that the child went missing at any time between Gerry McCann last seeing her at 9.10pm and Kate McCann finding her missing at 10.00pmSo this 'forensic analysis of the time-line of events' relies entirely on which version of Kate McCann's 'evidence' that Redwood has chosen to believe. Not good is it ? ... and thank you blogger, for providing an arena in which this case can be discussed rationally and politely.
Thank you Anon.One other aspect I find rather remarkable is that the rest of the "Tapas" crowd have been "unseen and unheard" since the original statements in Portugal. I would have thought that one or other would take an opportunity to "cash in" on their experiences with the Press! Why have they been so silent? Or have I missed something along the line?Maybe someday one of them will "tell all" and there will possibly be some new information to add to what is already known!And also, why has there been no claim on the massive reward that is on offer?? Because no-one(sic)has any information? Someone must!
Post a Comment