Latest news on the search for Madeleine McCann

[Sherlock Holmes]

We don't know anything about any of them so anything is possible, but why aren't the papers showing the double efits anymore then? I'm very cynical - they never bothered with the Smith sighting before October and they're not bothering now.

It is odd I agree that the Smith sighting appeared to be short lived in terms of SY's focus, but on the other hand, this was the 'revelation moment'.

If DCI Redwood was lacking something to say on Crimewatch, he would not have been wise to announce Smithman with such fanfare. Why not just say Smithman was one idea among many?

[VIXTE]

Very possibly.  With the change over being, maybe, at O.C. Staff quarters ?  The Staff quarters are just about 50 metres up the road from the first Smith sighting in Rua d'Escola

And the first dogs route? Suggesting that Madeleine walked around the block and to the parking area across the road of the OC reception.

The dogs route is the most confusing.

Another thing is : who says that these people are all men?

The early email to Prince Charles suggested it was an ex staff woman.

[icabodcrane]

It is odd I agree that the Smith sighting appeared to be short lived in terms of SY's focus, but on the other hand, this was the 'revelation moment'.

If DCI Redwood was lacking something to say on Crimewatch, he would not have been wise to announce Smithman with such fanfare. Why not just say Smithman was one idea among many?

The man the Smiths saw was not Redwoods  'revelation'  moment

He was refering to the discovery that the Man Jane Tanner saw was almost certainly an identified innocent father

[Sherlock Holmes]

The man the Smiths saw was not Redwoods  'revelation'  moment

He was refering to the discovery that the Man Jane Tanner saw was almost certainly an identified innocent father

Oh.

I thought the 'revelation moment' was the idea that the timeline had been extended until much later in the evening...

[icabodcrane]

Oh.

I thought the 'revelation moment' was the idea that the timeline had been extended until much later in the evening...

The timeline changed  because  of the  'revelation'  that Jane Tanner did  not see Madeleine being abducted

[Lyall]

It is odd I agree that the Smith sighting appeared to be short lived in terms of SY's focus, but on the other hand, this was the 'revelation moment'.

If DCI Redwood was lacking something to say on Crimewatch, he would not have been wise to announce Smithman with such fanfare. Why not just say Smithman was one idea among many?

To counterbalance removing JT's man they needed something else big to splash, or at least something the uninformed public might think was big - something dramatic and visual. Crimewatch could have been a disaster otherwise.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The timeline changed  because  of the  'revelation'  that Jane Tanner did  not see Madeleine being abducted

Yes, but the ideas are very closely connected nonetheless. Point is an awful lot of fanfare - a 'new' timeline and focus on Smithman - over what was essentially existing information.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To counterbalance removing JT's man they needed something else big to splash, or at least something the uninformed public might think was big - something dramatic and visual. Crimewatch could have been a disaster otherwise.

Think we mentioned this before, but why bother to do a Crimewatch if there's really nothing new to say?

Could Redwood afford to say something just for the sake of sounding like he had something to say, risking it becoming known that that was all there is too it?

Surely he is thinking further ahead than this. There will come a day of reckoning for Scotland Yard - perhaps not too far away now - when they will have to sit down and explain to the public exactly what their findings are, and what resources and at what cost have been used to get there. Making something up in the middle is not going to help him.

[icabodcrane]

Yes, but the ideas are very closely connected nonetheless. Point is an awful lot of fanfare - a 'new' timeline and focus on Smithman - over what was essentially existing information.

I disagree

The theory that Jane Tanner had seen Madeleine being carried off by an abductor   (  whilst Gerry was talking to an independent witness  )   has been driven relentlessy for the last six years

Redwood was right  ...   dismissing that theory as wrong was a  huge  revelation

[Sherlock Holmes]

I disagree

The theory that Jane Tanner had seen Madeleine being carried off by an abductor   (  whilst Gerry was talking to an independent witness  )   has been driven relentlessy for the last six years

Redwood was right  ...   dismissing that theory as wrong was a  huge  revelation

I'll have to think about that, icabod.

It's not as if Redwood dismissed the abduction theory as such. In fact he seemed eager to find a replacement for Tannerman in the person of Smithman - whom we had all known about for years. No revelations there.

[icabodcrane]

I'll have to think about that, icabod.

It's not as if Redwood dismissed the abduction theory as such. In fact he seemed eager to find a replacement for Tannerman in the person of Smithman - whom we had all known about for years. No revelations there.

What's to think about  ?

Redwood does not believe the abduction story that the  McCanns have been pushing relentlessly for six years

There's nothing insignificant about that

[Lyall]

Think we mentioned this before, but why bother to do a Crimewatch if there's really nothing new to say?

Could Redwood afford to say something just for the sake of sounding like he had something to say, risking it becoming known that that was all there is too it?

Surely he is thinking further ahead than this. There will come a day of reckoning for Scotland Yard - perhaps not too far away now - when they will have to sit down and explain to the public exactly what their findings are, and what resources and at what cost have been used to get there. Making something up in the middle is not going to help him.

He didn't make it up as we know the Smith family statements are real, but why will there be a day of reckoning? British police don't have to explain themselves, unless Parliament requests it. Will the press bother asking questions? It doesn't look like it at the moment.

[VIXTE]

Has anyone tonight  seen a quote in news with "They are not just burglars - the situation is a bit more complicated"

I am sure I have seen this somewhere and would like to understand it better but now not available..

[Sherlock Holmes]

What's to think about  ?

Redwood does not believe the abduction story that the  McCanns have been pushing relentlessly for six years

There's nothing insignificant about that

It's not a case of not 'believing a story'. He has ruled out Tannerman because of evidence he claims to have. Nothing to do with belief.

The question is, is it really earth shattering news that one would-be abductor has been swapped for another would-be abductor we already knew about?

[Sherlock Holmes]

He didn't make it up as we know the Smith family statements are real, but why will there be a day of reckoning? British police don't have to explain themselves, unless Parliament requests it. Will the press bother asking questions? It doesn't look like it at the moment.

By a day of reckoning, I don't mean a formal process of any kind.

I mean that there will come a time when Scotland Yard's investigation will be brought to a conclusion - whatever that may mean - and at that point, people will expect some sort of explanation as to why the investigation has ended at that point and what has been done with resources hitherto.

I cannot imagine their being no public discussion on the costs and findings of this case after the fact. There has been so much interest and discussion hitherto, it is hard to imagine it all coming to an abrupt halt just because Scotland Yard bow out.

In the event of Scotland Yard presenting any conclusive findings, that will beg questions of all types.