Madeleine’s latest ‘revelations’

Dear Editor,
I didn’t think that the information was touted by (Detective Chief Inspector Andy) Redwood as being new, but I think that they have to visit those crimes in order to tie it in or discard them as relevant to Madeleine’s disappearance.
The Met have in the past few years, quite a few times, revisited information already in the public domain. At least each and every bit of information is being looked at – unlike previous investigations.
As to the fact that the suspect is that poor black guy, he was identified by the PJ, NOT the Met. They are saying that there is no information that points to him, and that one of the attacks happened a year after he died.
They spoke of a tanned guy with unkempt hair – no way was the African guy a ‘tanned guy’. Even the most pc motivated person could call him only tanned! The conclusion that I draw is that the Met aren’t looking for the African, but another guy.
As to the assumption that there is no evidence to support Madeleine’s abduction, she disappeared, she’s gone without a trace, the Met unequivocally state that there is no evidence that her parents harmed her, then she must have been taken – abducted.
As far as I can see the Met are systematically going through the information, making public what they need to. No muddle at all. Just reams of information and clues that were never documented, were ignored by Amaral and the PJ – because it didn’t fit in with their hypothesis.
Jacci Freimond Rudling