So what is the evidence for abduction?

[G-Unit]

DCI Redwood was an experienced investigator. Does anyone have any idea therefore why he made himself look anything but when he explained away Tannerman?

1. How likely is it that the man they found still had exactly the same outfit in his wardrobe (and remembered what he was wearing)
2. How likely is it that they still had the pyjamas their child wore that night (and remembered which ones it was wearing)
3. How likely is it that this man picked up his child dressed only in pyjamas from the night creche on a chiily night and instead of rushing it back to the apartment took it for a walk around the town then headed back towards the creche (where had he been?)

[Anna]

DCI Redwood was an experienced investigator. Does anyone have any idea therefore why he made himself look anything but when he explained away Tannerman?

1. How likely is it that the man they found still had exactly the same outfit in his wardrobe (and remembered what he was wearing)
2. How likely is it that they still had the pyjamas their child wore that night (and remembered which ones it was wearing)
3. How likely is it that this man picked up his child dressed only in pyjamas from the night creche on a chiily night and instead of rushing it back to the apartment took it for a walk around the town then headed back towards the creche (where had he been?)

That is a question that has been mulled over many times, G.
Was it the person that JT saw on that night, or did she see an abductor?
All very strange to say the least!

[jassi]

That is a question that has been mulled over many times, G.
Was it the person that JT saw on that night, or did she see an abductor?
All very strange to say the least!

Redwood seemed quite happy about it not being  the abductor and we know that everything he says must be true.

[Alfred R Jones]

But he never said that in so many words, did he? Why don't you watch the video again.

Why don't you tell me verbatim exactly what you think he said then?

[Lace]

You must remember Angelo, Mccanns Law.

They were out 'dining'.

It must be true, it's always said on sky,the BBC and in the papers.

The mere idea they were drinking before and during the evenings, on the 3 rd May, and before, were mere fabrications by the 'sceptics'.

What do you think dave, was it all made up about the drinking ?

They had one glass of wine before they went out Stephen,  you make it sound as though they were drunk.   Many people have a glass of wine at home before they go out,  then have drinks with their meal.  No one reported that they were drunk on any night that week.

[Lace]

Nope, wrong again.

Have to go for a few hours, look forward to your "evidence of abduction" post when I return.

 

What evidence do you want?    A note from the abductor saying 'I woz here'   There are MANY cases where there is no finger prints,   dna,   of the abductor.    In Sarah Payne's case if her brother hadn't seen that white van what evidence would there have been?    What evidence is there for Ben Needham.   The police probably come to their conclusion by elimination that it is unlikely she wandered,   not likely she had an accident and so what is left as there is no body to be found is abduction.

[Anna]

Redwood seemed quite happy about it not being  the abductor and we know that everything he says must be true.

Did he not say something like...We are almost certain that this is the man seen by JT?

I am inclined to agree with G, on this.
 How can you remember all these details, be in the wrong place and still have the same clothing?
I have always found this very difficult to understand.
We were given no explanation and there is no statement that we know of, by this holidaymaker.
Hopefully an explanation will be given at a later date.....Who knows?

[jassi]

He was the lead detective. What he says MUST be true - would he try to mislead everyone?

[ferryman]

He was the lead detective. What he says MUST be true - would he try to mislead everyone?

Without a doubt.

Unless you really believe Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's power's of arrest (having first being contradicted and corrected by Amaral on interpretation of the forensic results) ...

[Anna]

He was the lead detective. What he says MUST be true - would he try to mislead everyone?

Who said that he was trying to mislead anyone?

[ferryman]

Who said that he was trying to mislead anyone?

Well, cerainly me ....

[Anna]

Well, cerainly me ....

You believe that Redwood was trying to mislead everybody?

[ferryman]

You believe that Redwood was trying to mislead everybody?

Ah.

I took Jassi as referring (as I thought!) ironically to Amaral rather than Redwood.

Reading back, I see she was referring to Redwood who, no, certainly had no intention of deceiving anyone ...

[Angelo222]

I am still awaiting your "evidence" for the "abduction"
Very curious that you have provided none in response to my request.

Not really surprising as some eights years on there still isn't any.

[Benice]

It's not unclear, was is unclear is whether he said this is  his belief what actually happened to Madeleine. IOW all he said was that there was an opportunity for such an act.

Are you actually being serious?

DCI Redwood is talking exclusively about the McCann case and specifically about Madeleine McCann.  He was not talking in general terms in any way shape or form.     

In fact he could not have been more crystal clear or unambiguous if he'd tried.

The ability of some sceptics to convince themselves that black is white never ceases to amaze me.