Re: Faith in Op Grange

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 16:50

logical wrote:I thought this forum was meant to be open and democratic? Why has this thread been locked?

I have been a reader of this forum since its foundation and in my opinion Roger Rabbits' post on this thread have been among the top posts ever

He has certainly brought out some 'Senior Members' colours here whom because they had no answers or factual rebuttals to his posts

had to resort to insults and ridiculous 2-liners yes aquila I'm talking about you.

I noticed Tony hasn't been able to debate with Roger Rabbit either.

REPLY: I have zero interest in doing so, as he posts as an apologist for Operation Grange and all those behind it - and IMO IS disrupting (as I think you are).

I personally didn't/don't view Roger Rabbit as a disrupter, to the contrary I see him as one of the best articulate posters ever on this forum

who should be encouraged to keep posting instead of being hounded out by false accusations from members not up to his intellectual level

all in My Opinion of course

REPLY: Of course

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 16:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
logical wrote:I thought this forum was meant to be open and democratic? Why has this thread been locked?

I have been a reader of this forum since its foundation and in my opinion Roger Rabbits' post on this thread have been among the top posts ever

He has certainly brought out some 'Senior Members' colours here whom because they had no answers or factual rebuttals to his posts

had to resort to insults and ridiculous 2-liners yes aquila I'm talking about you.

I noticed Tony hasn't been able to debate with Roger Rabbit either.

REPLY: I have zero interest in doing so, as he posts as an apologist for Operation Grange and all those behind it - and IMO IS disrupting (as I think you are).

I personally didn't/don't view Roger Rabbit as a disrupter, to the contrary I see him as one of the best articulate posters ever on this forum

who should be encouraged to keep posting instead of being hounded out by false accusations from members not up to his intellectual level

all in My Opinion of course

REPLY: Of course

You don't have to be an intellectual to smell bullshit.

by **sharonl** 06.04.15 18:09

Please remember that this forum is about seeking truth and justice for a little girl, it is not a battleground.

We will not tolerate disruption or attacks on any poster.

Two obvious disruptors have already been excluded

Please stay on topic.

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 18:27

On topic.

How many cases of missing children have the senior officer seated in a helicopter having his photo taken by a selected agency?

Is it normal for a SIO to take a front seat in a search helicopter or is it usually done by officers who are better placed in that discipline?

by **sharonl** 06.04.15 19:55

aquila wrote:On topic.

How many cases of missing children have the senior officer seated in a helicopter having his photo taken by a selected agency?

Is it normal for a SIO to take a front seat in a search helicopter or is it usually done by officers who are better placed in that discipline?

Answer A: One

Answer B: it depends on whether it is a genuine investigation or just a staged event for the media.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 21:00

How about this?

How common is it for a review of an investigation with three declared suspects in the case already to begin with a remit completely ruling out two of the three suspects from the get-go?

Or this?

How common is it for a Senior Investigating Officer to spend six months and about £2 million of BBC and Met Police money organising a show with:
a) a grossly misleading reconstruction,
b) two e-fits of distrinctly different blokes,
c) allegedly drawn up a year after the person who saw the bloke in the dark for a few seconds said he'd never be able to recognise him again,
d) and which had been kept under wraps for well over 5 years?

----------------------------

@ Roger Rabbit if he's still here:

To save you supplying an anwser, your answer to the above question would be: "Are you too thick to see (as I can) that this is a cunning plot by the best detectives in the country to find the people really responsible for Madeleine's disappearance?".

Then 'scrants', 'TheTruthWillOut' and 'logical' will follow up with "How brilliant thou art, Roger"

by Angelique 06.04.15 23:43

Ladyinred wrote:Hi Angelique. I was interested in your last paragraph so read some of your posts where in one (28th May 2014) you state that, in your opinion, there was no neglect and it was the babysitter who was responsible. Responsible for MBM's death? On 29th July 2014 you posted that you believed that the Mcs were involved with dealing with the aftermath.

What do you believe happened to MBM?

Hi Ladyinred

Sorry for the delay in replying.

My opinion hasn't changed from my previous posts you mention. I am still of the opinion that K & G were not responsible for whatever occurred which meant that the discovery of Madeleine would not be possible. I don't agree with neglect at all.

@PeterMac

I do still think they had to deal with the aftermath but I also believe that they had no choice and that they would never be held responsible for whatever they did do. I think this is what Ironside aka SteelMagnolia was told when she spoke to OG. That K & G would never see the inside of a Court room with respect to anything regarding the disappearance of Madeleine. But this is only my opinion at this time.

by Guest 07.04.15 0:04

Thanks for your response, Angelique. I'm a little confused (it's very late for me to be still awake), could you be more specific?

by Angelique 07.04.15 0:28

Ladyinred wrote:Thanks for your response, Angelique. I'm a little confused (it's very late for me to be still awake), could you be more specific?

Hello again Ladyinred

Sorry if I was being too brief.

I think someone else within the group was responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Although GA said, at the time he was in charge of investigation, that Madeleine had suffered an accident and fell off the sofa in the apartment and landed on the floor undiscovered until too late. I don't believe this and maybe GA will think differently now, who knows. With what he has already gone through and is going through as we speak he must have some inkling of what he is up against, not just the McCanns. He has even suggested it's Political. So he does know. I also think that Gerry's "smirking" although it looks like "dupers delight" - well, yes in a way it is, but it's because he knows he is untouchable, they both are IMO.

As the person involved in whatever happened to Madeleine whoever it is, is important, the whole HMG machinery swung into action and arrived very quickly on the scene. This does not happen for the normal holiday-maker. As we have seen and continue to see no matter what evidence anyone has it will be destroyed or discredited, in the case of the dogs, totally ignored. I do think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before May 3rd. It would necessarily have taken some time even for HMG to get all necessary people on board. For some reason they decided on a course of action that required K & G to state that Madeleine had been abducted. I think this is the bit that I don't like, if I am right in what I think it is about. I can't put it into this reply in words but I think it relates to The Fund if you see what I mean. They had to be In front of the cameras, reporting, pleading, etc. How else could they have The Fund?

I hope this explains my theory of what I think happened.

by jeanmonroe 07.04.15 15:55

Angelique wrote:

"As the person involved in whatever happened to Madeleine whoever it is, is important, the whole HMG machinery swung into action and arrived very quickly on the scene. This does not happen for the normal holiday-maker. As we have seen and continue to see no matter what evidence anyone has it will be destroyed or discredited, in the case of the dogs, totally ignored. I do think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before May 3rd. It would necessarily have taken some time even for HMG to get all necessary people on board. For some reason they decided on a course of action that required K & G to state that Madeleine had been abducted. I think this is the bit that I don't like, if I am right in what I think it is about. I can't put it into this reply in words but I think it relates to The Fund if you see what I mean. They had to be In front of the cameras, reporting, pleading, etc. How else could they have The Fund?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm none the 'clearer', sorry.

Are you 'saying' the 'Fund' is, somehow, their 'recompense' for er, 'keeping schtum' about what 'happened' to Madeleine by a V.I.P. to the Labour government, of the day?

And that the Labour HMG, of the day, 'conspired' with the McCann's, to have all the 'donators' to the 'fund', including handicapped kiddies, 'duped' into 'donating' to the 'fund'?

Is the 'fund' then, iyo, 'fraudulent'?

"Set up" AFTER the McS and HMG 'knew' what had happened to Madeleine 'on or before' 3rd May 2007.

WHY the 'pretence' then, of ongoing, taxpayers, £12 million+, OG?

If all HMG, and previous HMG, 'know' what 'happened' to Madeleine McCann, on or before, 3rd May 2007.

WHY would the Conservatives have any 'truck', whatsoever, with what a V.I.P. to a LABOUR 'government' did, or did not, 'do' to a defenceless 3 years old child?

If you 'know' a 'name' just 'mis-spell' or initial who you 'think' was 'involved'.

Save us a lot of 'time'..............'searching' for a 'name', wouldn't it?

The only 'name' i can think of, remotely associated, with Labour goverment, at the time, is MP MH's 'nephew', PME.

Who was 'booked' in Praia da Luz, as his choice of holiday venue, for the week 28 April to 5 May 2007.

PME 'left' a day earlier than scheduled, on 4th May 2007.

But that, is all 'on record'

Although PME has 'said' this: "'In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller."

WHY he thinks people, 'out there', should NOT 'be questioning' the yet UNEXPLAINED 'disappearance', by the UK's er, umm, 'finest' Police force, SY/MET, of a 3 years old child, is another 'matter' entirely! (imo)

by Guest 07.04.15 18:59

Angelique wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Thanks for your response, Angelique. I'm a little confused (it's very late for me to be still awake), could you be more specific?

Hello again Ladyinred

Sorry if I was being too brief.

I think someone else within the group was responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Although GA said, at the time he was in charge of investigation, that Madeleine had suffered an accident and fell off the sofa in the apartment and landed on the floor undiscovered until too late. I don't believe this and maybe GA will think differently now, who knows. With what he has already gone through and is going through as we speak he must have some inkling of what he is up against, not just the McCanns. He has even suggested it's Political. So he does know. I also think that Gerry's "smirking" although it looks like "dupers delight" - well, yes in a way it is, but it's because he knows he is untouchable, they both are IMO.

As the person involved in whatever happened to Madeleine whoever it is, is important, the whole HMG machinery swung into action and arrived very quickly on the scene. This does not happen for the normal holiday-maker. As we have seen and continue to see no matter what evidence anyone has it will be destroyed or discredited, in the case of the dogs, totally ignored. I do think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before May 3rd. It would necessarily have taken some time even for HMG to get all necessary people on board. For some reason they decided on a course of action that required K & G to state that Madeleine had been abducted. I think this is the bit that I don't like, if I am right in what I think it is about. I can't put it into this reply in words but I think it relates to The Fund if you see what I mean. They had to be In front of the cameras, reporting, pleading, etc. How else could they have The Fund?

I hope this explains my theory of what I think happened.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your theory, Angelique.

by logical 07.04.15 21:11

Post deleted

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 21:55

logical wrote:Is this Tony's forum ?

I seem to recall that the topic here is 'Faith in Operation Grange'.

So you've strayed off-topic again.

But this is where you came in, isn't it, 'logical'?

You were one of a dozen or so (mostly proven disruptors) who suddenly rushed to join this forum the moment I popped my head above the parapet and raised serious doubts about the 'Smith sighting'.

You first posted on CMOMM at 3.43pm on Friday 18 October - 4 days after the BBC Crimewatch-cum-Met Police McCann Show, with the message: "Hi! I'm new here!"

12 minutes later [3.55pm], you began your attack as follows:

"So the entire Smith family made up the story Tony??? Young Aoife Smith made up her discription of the clothes the man was wearing which happens to be identical to Gerry McCann's uncommon buttons on the side trousers??

"You and PeterMac therefore disagree with Goncalo Amaral and Pat Brown's belief in this Smith sighting??"

Things have still not changed over the past 18 months.

You, Roger Rabbit and a few others have an apparently undying faith in (a) the utter, wholehearted sincerity of the Operation Grange team and (b) the reliability of what the Smiths say.

You probably also believe that 'Crecheman' is genuine.

On all these issues I have a wholly different view.

As has been plain for the past 18 months, the forum-owner and the Mods here ave continued to allow a free flow of debate about whether Grange is a whitewash or not and whether or not the Smiths really did produce those 2 e-fits of different-looking men.

I saw that sharonl referred to two disruptors having been shown the door, a decision of which I heartily approve. If one of them was 'Roger Rabbit', so much the better.

'comperenda' was very kind to decribe the Rabbit's posts as 'opaque'. I still suggest that 'rubbish' was much nearer the mark

by Knitted 07.04.15 23:16

logical wrote:Snipped:

Has Roger Rabbit been barred for being too Articulate with his posts That Tony and Aquila couldn't (not wouldn't) respond to ?

Snipped: Is this Tonys Forum ?

Hi Logical,

For what it's worth...I don't think there's any bias in this forum. There are undoubtedly dominant voices and characters, (Tony and Aquila fit into that category), but so what? It takes all sorts and people bring different things to the forum. I can get as much value out of some of the very short postings from more succinct posters on here as much as any 1000 word post from those who like me can sometimes be prone to using 100 words instead of 10. What matters is the rationality and logic of the point(s) being made, nothing else.

Online we don't get the nonverbal signals that we pick up on when talking face to face, and so online discussions inevitably descend into (perceived) negativity. Various scientific experiments have shown that recipients tend to (mis)interpret positive online messages as being more neutral than the sender intended, and by the same token they (mis)interpret neutral text as being more negative. Those experiments showed this is especially true when criticism or challenge is being received, (n.b. Interestingly on dating sites the 'flow' often goes the other way and readers interpret poster's neutral comments as being more positive and along the likes of "he/she likes me" when they shouldn't). So, my mantra when I read things in forums that I disagree with, especially when they are directed at me, is to force on some big rose-tinted specs and re-read it, because the science tells me that my brain is inevitably reading the text far more negatively than was intended by whoever wrote it.

My personal experience on this site: I think I've incurred Aquila's wrath (& mistrust!) once or twice, but I've also had Aquila saying they agree with. So the evidence suggests they're fair. When it comes to Tony, he's got a vast knowledge of the case but I don't agree with all his analysis and opinions.. However, I'd rather a site where healthy argument happens, than a site where it doesn't and where shills and/or misguided individuals get to freely post all manner of chaff without challenge and thus the important stuff is swamped and buried.

Rest assured most readers will probably make their own minds up (or remain on the fence) based upon the merit of respective arguments... and not who's making them, nor how many words are typed or the quality of the grammar. Rationality and logic are ultimately what count.

My point, therefore, is that we shouldn't take anything too personally.

As regards shills and trouble-makers. I'm sure we've all got a few names logged in our grey cells as to who we think (know!) are up to no good, and of course I'm sure we all (think we) see 'suspicious patterns' from time to time. It's inevitable they're here and are no doubt motivated for different reasons... but ultimately it's the debate, the exchange and the challenge and counter-challenge that matters. Facts can't be buried when robust challenge happens... It's a shame when things get personal, but it's unfortunately par-for-the-course online but thankfully this site seems to be much better at avoiding it than most...& I'd suggest that ironically it's exactly because of the healthy, logical, challenging that goes on, (other sites seem to entertain less 'fact based' debates and thus descend more quickly into emotion and silliness).

by Angelique 08.04.15 2:10

Ladyinred

:)

jeanmonroe

I think I have explained as much as I am able to in the circumstances.

I don't believe it was the nephew PME.

I don't believe it was an MP.

I think the Fund is fraudulent but allowed to be.

At the time of the request for a Review/Investigation SY were facing cuts - it solved a problem of manpower.

The suggestion that "enough is enough" has come at a point when, how did they put it "we are facing increased terrorists threats" - how convenient!

If OG is wound up the men can return to their previous posts.

This is only IMO.

by jeanmonroe 08.04.15 13:06

Angelique on Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:10 am

jeanmonroe

I think I have explained as much as I am able to in the circumstances.
================================

I don't believe it was the nephew PME.

I don't believe it was an MP.
====================================

I think the Fund is fraudulent but allowed to be.
=====================================

At the time of the request for a Review/Investigation SY were facing cuts - it solved a problem of manpower.
==============================================

The suggestion that "enough is enough" has come at a point when, how did they put it "we are facing increased terrorists threats" - how convenient!
========================================

If OG is wound up the men can return to their previous posts.
===================================

"I think I have explained as much as I am able to in the circumstances."

Circumstances?

"I don't believe it was the nephew PME. I don't believe it was an MP."

So, 'another' V. I. P. 'associated' with the LABOUR HMG, at the 'time'?

"I think the Fund is fraudulent but allowed to be."

By TWO HMG's? WHO is 'allowing/authorising' a 'fraudulent 'fund' to continue?

"At the time of the request for a Review/Investigation SY were facing cuts - it solved a problem of manpower."

How is taking 38 detectives/police staff AWAY from, for almost 4 YEARS, their 'duty' to 'protect' ALL Londoners, 'solving' a problem of police 'manpower' in the Capital?

"If OG is wound up the men can return to their previous posts."

And 'women'! I suggest ex DCI Redwood will not be 'returning' to his previous 'post' winkwink

And 'all' the 'returning' police officers/staff will be 'expected' to keep 'schtum' about what they have 'done' in the last, almost 4 years, of their 'service', i presume?

Good luck with THAT, i'd say!

Their 'new mates', at their 're-deployment 'teams', will have it 'out' of them in a nano second, down the pub, after 'work'

Perhaps that is where we'll find out, finally, exactly what OG, did, or did NOT, 'do', to 'investigate' a child's 'disappearance'.

Remembering that a SERVING MET officer, has already said 'Operation Grange is a f**king embarrassment to honest, hardworking, MET cops"

Good luck to the 're-deployed' OG 'officer' who gets 'detailed' to SERVE with that 'guy'!

Oh, just two more 'things': Would the Oldfields, Paynes or JT/R O'B,...... who all, lest we forget, also left ALL of their kids, FIVE kids, in total, ALONE, in their apartments, as the McCanns did, when leaving, diliberately and consciously,all under 4 years of age, their 3 kids, ALONE, out of sight,.... have been er, 'treated' EXACTLY the 'same' as the McCanns HAVE, these last almost 8 (EIGHT) YEARS, if it had been one of THEIR 'kids' that had gone 'missing/disappeared/ ~~abducted'~~ on 3rd May 2007, in PDL, Portugal?

Would any of 'them' have been 'allowed' to 'set up', and continue with, a 'fraudulent fund', no 'questions' asked?

by **Tony Bennett** 08.04.15 13:08

#Tune, change of

Found in another place today:

QUOTE Cristobell

"I have to say that after a very long chat with Joana Morais recently, I'm not nearly as optimistic as I was that this investigation is real. It's gone on too long, and the Portuguese don't seem to have the will to prosecute anyone. For the past couple of years the PJ have been receiving nonsense requests to interview random loners and misfits from SY, that have little or no bearing on what happened on 3rd May 2007. The circus goes on...I tend to think now, however, that had there been any intention to discover what really happened to Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard would have 'broken' the Tapas group alibis at the start, and let's face it, it would haven't taken much, rather than waste 4 years and £10m+ of public money with this 'we are on the case' extravaganza, that looks as though it is about to fizzle out".

+++++++++++++++

At last, she's got around to singing from the same hymn sheet...

Faith in Op Grange - Page 10 Xxxmus10

by Guest 08.04.15 13:39

Tony Bennett wrote:QUOTE Cristobell

"...I tend to think now, however, that had there been any intention to discover what really happened to Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard would have 'broken' the Tapas group alibis at the start, and let's face it, it would haven't taken much..."

Yes, she has that right.

Investigate the bleedin' obvious first.

by Angelique 08.04.15 13:57

jeanmonroe

smilie

So many questions - can I have a little time to answer?

by jeanmonroe 08.04.15 14:04

Angelique wrote:jeanmonroe

So many questions - can I have a little time to answer?

Of course you can.

Only please hurry, because i don't think Madeleine is over impressed with her 'hellish' LAIR, nr PDL! winkwink

by jeanmonroe 08.04.15 14:12

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:QUOTE Cristobell

"...I tend to think now, however, that had there been any intention to discover what really happened to Madeleine McCann, Scotland Yard would have 'broken' the Tapas group alibis at the start, and let's face it, it would haven't taken much..."
Yes, she has that right.

Investigate the bleedin' obvious first.

DCI Redwood, nominated investigating officer, at OG, said: "We have approached the material with a completely open mind. We have sought to put Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do."

Presumeably the 'material' he had 'read', with a completely 'open mind', upside down, inside out, front to back, back to front, and 'found' NOTHING 'WRONG', WERE the T9 'statements' all made 'under oath' and 'signed' personally by them.

Please TELL me, he DID!

Oh, ok.

by Angelique 08.04.15 14:23

jeanmonroe

Circumstances?

Life is good as long as you don't face a libel trial.

Another V.I.P etc.?

No - no one Political.

Who is allowing/authorising the fraudulent fund?

No one. If they are going with abduction its not fraudulent in their eyes.

How is taking 38 detectives etc, etc?

It's not, but in a job has to be better than redundant.

And 'women'!

Sorry - yes and women. smilie

And all the returning police officers/staff etc, etc.

Why would they have to keep quiet. They were investigating for an abduction. The fact that they couldn't find the perpetraitor after 4 long years means that they have given it their all and can boast about it. Privately they may have different opinions to abduction but that's their problem.

Their 'new mates' at the 'redeployment teams' etc.

Possibly but they will say it was really awful going over and over the same pieces of paper smilie

Would Oldfields, Payne etc,etc.

Yes, though there is a slight possibility bar one.

Would they have been allowed to set up etc, etc.

If abduction was the agenda - then yes.

by jeanmonroe 08.04.15 14:47

"For the past couple of years the PJ have been receiving NONSENSE REQUESTS to interview random loners and misfits FROM SY, that have little or no bearing on what happened on 3rd May 2007."
====================

I can't wait, I JUST CAN'T WAIT........for those 'pesky' PJ to 'release' their second 'tranche' of 'files', if they 're-shelve' their second 'investigation'!

Put 'simply'

Just substitute 'our 'helpful' STU's' name in the first release of files, with 'our 'helpful' ANDY'S' name, in the second 'release' of 'files'?

"We prefer not to discuss this with Detective Supertintendent Stuart Prior, of Leicestershire Police, we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious".

I just can't f**king WAIT!

67 (SIXTY SEVEN) 'meetings' between SY/MET/LP and PJ!

Whatever did they find to 'chat' about, at all those 'meetings'?

Guess the second lot of PJ 'files' will TELL us!

by Liz Eagles 08.04.15 15:06

jeanmonroe wrote:"For the past couple of years the PJ have been receiving NONSENSE REQUESTS to interview random loners and misfits FROM SY, that have little or no bearing on what happened on 3rd May 2007."
====================

I can't wait, I JUST CAN'T WAIT........for those 'pesky' PJ to 'release' their second 'tranche' of 'files', if they 're-shelve' their second 'investigation'!

Put 'simply'

Just substitute 'our 'helpful' STU's' name in the first release of files, with 'our 'helpful' ANDY'S' name, in the second 'release' of 'files'?

"We prefer not to discuss this with Detective Supertintendent Stuart Prior, of Leicestershire Police, we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to prevent their detention. His concern on that subject is obvious".

I just can't f**king WAIT!

67 (SIXTY SEVEN) 'meetings' between SY/MET/LP and PJ!

Whatever did they find to 'chat' about, at all those 'meetings'?

Guess the second lot of PJ 'files' will TELL us!

Jean, I don't think the PJ will release anymore files.

I think OG will be put on the back burner to keep the case 'open', the PJ have probably conceded to keep the investigation open as long as OG are keeping it open so every now and then there will be a flutter of Madeleine's wings. This case is going to dwindle. It began in that fashion and will continue in that fashion.

I believe those in authority want it to go away. I believe they also want the thorn in their side which is the McCanns to go away. I believe the McCanns are being relegated to watching a game of crown green bowls (garden leave). I believe the media will probably drag things up now and then. I believe the McCanns will most probably (and have already) recede from public life. I believe the Missing People charity will thrive and without the need for Kate at the helm (which it has already).

There will be no justice for Madeleine McCann, the most exploited child on the planet.

Just my opinion.

I also believe the McCanns will win some form of damages in the libel trial to keep things at bay. Even if it's a few quid it will prove things not to have an outright winner.

Apologies for my scepticism.

by Verdi 08.04.15 15:39

@ bluebag

"Investigate the bleedin' obvious first."

Absolutely, the obvious first move. They didn't though did they and I don't somehow think they intend to. The whole affair is a travesty, Scotland Yard nor the government will ever be able to justify the time and money wasted on a fruitless exercise as this Operation Grange.

As for the other person that's given rise to the topic, No Comment!